Air quality sustainability program in Coconino County

Air Quality
Sustainability Program
in Coconino County
Cathy D. Arthur
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
Prepared ffor
Prepared by
and
Updated to July 15, 2004
i
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation
ADT Annual Average Daily Traffic count
APS Arizona Public Service
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CO Carbon Monoxide
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FMPO Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization
GRCA Grand Canyon
IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NACOG Northern Arizona Council of Governments
NAU Northern Arizona University
NH3 Ammonia
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOV Single Occupant Vehicle
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
VMT Vehicle-Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1
STUDY BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 1
GOAL OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................ 2
REPORT SUMMARY.............................................................................. 2
2. BACKGROUND.................................................................................... 5
SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN COCONINO COUNTY.......................... 5
AIR QUALITY IN COCONINO COUNTY ................................................... 7
3. VISIONING SESSION...........................................................................16
PRESENTATIONS.................................................................................16
FEEDBACK FROM VISIONING GROUP....................................................17
4. CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN ..................................................................25
PREFERRED STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING AIR QUALITY.......................25
CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN ...................................................................41
5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OUTREACH PROGRAM.............................43
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE PROGRAM.......................................43
THEME OF THE OUTREACH PROGRAM.................................................43
TARGET AUDIENCES...........................................................................44
OUTREACH SPONSORS ........................................................................47
PROGRAM COMPONENTS ....................................................................48
RECOMMENDED OUTREACH TECHNIQUES ...........................................48
EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH .................................................................52
OVERVIEW OF OUTREACH IMPLEMENTATION......................................53
APPENDIX A. SAMPLE OUTREACH FACT SHEETS ...................................55
APPENDIX B. SAMPLE SLIDE SHOW SCRIPT ............................................63
REFERENCES .........................................................................................66
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ................................................ 3
2. PROFILE OF SELECTED COCONINO COUNTY
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS: 2000 - BY REGION.................... 6
3. TONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS EMITTED ANNUALLY
BY AREA INDUSTRIES (1999)............................................................. 9
4. AIR QUALITY MONITORS IN COCONINO COUNTY .............................11
5. PERSONS WHO ATTENDED APRIL 30 VISIONING SESSION ..................17
6. IMPORTANT AIR QUALITY ISSUES FOR COCONINO COUNTY .............18
7. S.W.O.T. ANALYSIS FOR COCONINO COUNTY ..................................19
8. CATEGORIES USED IN CLASSIFYING
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES ......................................21
9. VOTING RESULTS FOR AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES.....23
10. HOW STRATEGIES SUPPORT THE AIR QUALITY GOALS .....................24
11. CHARACTERISTICS OF PREFERRED AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES...........................................................26
12. SELECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY BEST PRACTICES ...........................27
13. CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN FOR COCONINO COUNTY.........................42
14. MATRIX OF CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINING AIR QUALITY IN
COCONINO COUNTY.......................................................................45
15. POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY OUTREACH COMPONENTS........................49
18. AIR QUALITY SUSTAINABILITY
OUTREACH IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TEMPLATE .............................54
iv
TABLE OF FIGURES
Page
1. LOCATIONS OF INDUSTRIES EMITTING CO, NOx, VOC, SO2, PM10,
PM2.5, OR NH3 IN OR NEAR COCONINO COUNTY ................................10
2. ANNUAL PM10 TRENDS IN ARIZONA................................................12
3. TRENDS IN VISIBILITY AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK ...........13
4. 1996-2018 TOTAL COCONINO COUNTY MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS ...14
5. POLLUTANTS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO REDUCED VISIBILITY ON
THE WORST DAYS IN 1997 AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK ......15
6. PROPOSED LOGO FOR THE AIR AWARE OUTREACH EFFORT .............44
7. AIR AWARE OUTREACH DATABASE FORM.......................................47
8. ADOT AIR AWARE WEB SITE HOME PAGE ........................................50
9. EXAMPLE WEB PORTAL PAGE.........................................................51
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Coconino County is the largest county in Arizona and the second largest in the United
States. The County is also one of the fastest growing regions in Arizona. The County’s
population grew from approximately 96,591 in 1990 to 116,320 in 2000. County
population is projected to grow to 169,343 residents by 2020, a 46 percent increase in the
2000 population. [1], [2]
The 18,608 square mile county is one of the more topographically diverse regions of North
America, containing scrub deserts, vast prairies, and numerous mountain ranges. In
addition to the Grand Canyon, tourists visit Wupatki and Sunset Crater National
Monuments, Walnut Canyon, and Oak Creek Canyon. Attractions in Northern Coconino
County include Lake Powell National Recreation Area, Pipe Springs National Monument,
Marble Canyon, and the Vermilion Cliffs.
The County has four communities incorporated under the laws of Arizona: Flagstaff, a
statistical metropolitan area; Page; Williams; and Fredonia. Two other communities,
Leupp and Tuba City, are designated urban centers of the Navajo Nation.
Improving both the air quality and the level of visibility in Coconino County are
increasingly recognized as important goals.
STUDY BACKGROUND
Although Coconino County is currently in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), the dramatic population growth expected during the next 20 years
may threaten this classification status. Rapid growth over the past decade has increased
the number and intensity of air pollution-generating activities in the County, including on-road
automobile and truck traffic; off-road vehicles; rail traffic; residential; commercial
and road construction; and wood-burning fireplaces.
Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and congestion have increased as a consequence of
population growth. The County, the City of Flagstaff, and the Flagstaff Metropolitan
Planning Organization (FMPO) are all committed to decreasing VMT and congestion by
reducing the percentage of trips made in single occupant automobiles, increasing the use of
transit, and facilitating more bicycle and pedestrian travel. Additional transit service has
been introduced in Flagstaff, and more upgrades are anticipated. However, the automobile
is the dominant means of travel in rural areas of the County. Moreover, many secondary
County and U. S. Forest Service roads are unpaved, and the tires of vehicles using them in
dry weather eject dust into the air. Increased usage of unpaved roadways in outlying areas
commensurate with area population growth may degrade air quality unless action is taken
to manage the growth and mitigate its impacts.
Unlike many growing areas of Arizona, Coconino County is in the enviable position of
being classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an attainment area
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 2
for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (one-hour standard), and fine particulate matter (PM10).
Another air quality issue that may need to be addressed, and is often of concern to
Flagstaff area citizens due to visibility considerations, is the problem of urban haze or the
“brown cloud.”
GOAL OF THE PROJECT
Coconino County would like to retain its attainment status and maintain healthful and clear
air quality for its residents by implementing proactive strategies to reduce or offset the
effects of anticipated growth. Area jurisdictions and organizations can benefit from the
development of a framework for air quality management. The goal of this study has been
to identify air quality improvement strategies and develop a Clean Air Action Plan that will
facilitate the involvement of the community in improving air quality in Coconino County.
The following objectives were carried out:
• A Visioning Process was initiated that accommodated area constituencies including
elected officials, local government representatives, and other stakeholders.
• Local formulation of a Vision Statement representing stakeholder consensus was
facilitated.
• Current air quality was described and key pollutants that pose the greatest threats to
clean air improvement were identified.
• The best practices for controlling the amounts of the key pollutants in the air as
area population grows were selected and documented.
• A comprehensive Outreach Program designed to kick-off the Clean Air Action Plan
has been developed.
• An Implementation Plan framework that will enable each stakeholder jurisdiction
and organization to participate in the clean air program and facilitate coordination
among all the stakeholders has been outlined.
The Project was conducted under the guidance of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
and in coordination with key stakeholders. Members of the TAC are listed in Table 1.
REPORT SUMMARY
Chapter 2 provides an overview of current and future demographics and traffic conditions,
a technical assessment of air quality trends at the local and national levels, and an
inventory of local policies and plans that contribute to cleaner air. The chapter also
summarizes the socioeconomic conditions in Coconino County and examines the status of
air quality in the County, including data on current emission levels. The characteristics
and health impacts of major pollutants are reviewed.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 3
TABLE 1. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Organization Representative
Arizona Department of
Transportation
Pat Cupell, Sr. Transportation Planner
Arizona Department of
Transportation
Beverly Chenausky, Sr. Transportation Planner
Arizona Department of
Transportation
James Zumpf, FMPO Liaison
Coconino County Jerry Flannery, Assistant County Manager
Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning
Organization
David Wessel, Planner
National Park Service- Sam Henderson, Superintendent -
Flagstaff Areas
National Weather Service Mike Campbell, Meteorologist-in-Charge
Northern Arizona University Craig A. Roberts, Ph.D., P.E., Department of Civil
Engineering
U. S. Forest Service James W. Golden,
Coconino Forest Supervisor
U. S. Forest Service Pete Lahm, Air Quality Specialist
Project Team
Lima & Associates
Peter M. Lima, Ph.D., P.E., Principal
Robert H. Bohannan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Cathy D. Arthur, Independent Consultant
Chapter 3 describes the Visioning Session that took place on April 30, 2003, including
presentations made by the Project Team and by Northern Arizona University Professor
Terry Baxter and the feedback obtained from Session participants. The Visioning Session
included elected officials, local government representatives, and other stakeholders. At the
session, background information was presented by the project team. Attendees submitted
ideas to the project team that were subsequently developed into a Vision Statement. The
project team next facilitated an exercise in which measures and programs for sustaining air
quality were identified and prioritized. Using the results of the Visioning Session, the
project team developed a draft Clean Air Action Plan that was mailed to attendees and
members of the TAC for review and comment.
Chapter 4 presents the foundation for a Clean Air Action Plan for the County including the
ten air quality improvement strategies preferred by Visioning Session participants. These
strategies are:
1. Encourage Energy Efficiency and Renewable Sources of Energy
2. Conduct Education/Outreach Program to Sustain Clean Air
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 4
3. Encourage Alternatives to Single Occupant Vehicle Travel
4. Dust Control Plans with Mitigation Bond Requirements
5. Clean Burning Fireplaces in New Construction
6. Episode Curtailment Program for Wood Smoke
7. Innovative Land Use Planning to Encourage Multimodal Opportunities
8. Integrate Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality Decision-Making
9. Stabilize or Reduce Speeds on Unpaved Roads
10. Retrofit Municipal Diesel Vehicles and Equipment
A table outlines the final Clean Air Action Plan including action items, responsibilities,
and time schedule.
Chapter 5 proposes a structure for a comprehensive educational and outreach program to
sustain clean air in the County and presents a plan for implementing the program. A draft
logo for the outreach program has been prepared. In addition, a matrix recommending
outreach approaches for each of the ten control strategies in the action plan is provided.
Recommended outreach techniques include:
• Identification of a “champion” or “champions” among the stakeholders to lead the
effort
• Establishment of a stakeholder database
• Linkage to and coordination with the ADOT AIR AWARE Web site
• Involvement of local schools and Northern Arizona University
The following sample draft elements of the program are provided:
• A set of fact sheets supporting the control measures in the Action Plan
• A slide show script
An outreach implementation plan template is presented that lists the actions needed to
implement the program as an aid in assigning responsibilities and milestones.
Presentation of Findings
The findings and recommendations of this study were presented to a Work Session of the
Coconino County Board of Supervisors on July 13, 2004.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 5
2. BACKGROUND
The first section of this chapter briefly summarizes area demographics as a basis for
understanding the challenges faced in sustaining air quality for Coconino County. The
preservation of air quality and visibility in a region is inexorably linked to that area’s land
use and transportation policies, as well as to the ways in which area growth and
development occur. The number of VMT, miles of roads paved, area’s commitment to
alternative modes of transportation, and area home heating practices all affect the ability to
preserve clean and clear air.
Next, this chapter discusses Coconino County air quality data and issues including the
sources of air pollution, the location of stationary sources, and the effect of air pollutants
on area visibility.
SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN COCONINO COUNTY
Based on the US Census, the Year 2000 population of Coconino County was 116,320
residents. Of the total County population, 65.1 percent were White, 29.7 percent were
Native American, 10.9 were Hispanic or Latino, 1.4 percent were black or African
American, and 1.1 percent were Asian. A total of 8,143 persons, or 7.0 percent of the
total County population, were aged 65 years and over. The County had a total of 52,443
housing units. Of these, 40,448 units were occupied and 12,995 units were vacant. A
total of 9,155 of the units are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. The average
household size in the County was 2.80.
The U. S. Census Bureau projects that the total Coconino County population will reach
152,002 by 2012, and increase of almost 31 percent. By 2022, County population is
projected to grow another 14 percent to 173,455.
Table 2 profiles several socioeconomic characteristics that have a direct bearing on the
improvement of air quality and visibility. While almost seven percent of County
households lack automobiles, less than one percent of those commuting to work used
transit. However, more than 16 percent of County commuters carpool. These statistics
reflect the broad dispersion of persons within the county, but also suggest that a niche for
additional local and regional transit services exists. Over 15 percent of homes use wood as
a heating fuel, suggesting that adherence to and enforcement of local woodburning stove
ordinances are critical components of any air quality improvement effort.
County land use and ownership is as varied as the topography, and much of the land is
owned or controlled by public sector agencies including agencies of the federal government
and the State of Arizona or by Native American tribes.
While the majority of trips within Coconino County take place by automobile, the
County’s transportation system includes a variety of modes and methods by which persons
and goods travel to, within, or through the County.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 6
TABLE 2. PROFILE OF SELECTED COCONINO COUNTY SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS: 2000 - BY REGION
Flagstaff Region
Grand Canyon
Region Page Sedona Tuba City Region Williams Region
Remainder of
County County Total
Subject Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Employment Status
Population 16 years and over 45,750 100.00% 1,623 100.00% 4,973 100.00% 8,990 100.00% 5,588 100.00% 3,047 100.00% 25,996 100.00% 86,977 100.00%
In labor force 33,743 73.76% 1,486 91.56% 3,617 72.73% 5,167 57.47% 3,404 60.92% 2,043 67.05% 15,395 59.22% 59,688 68.63%
Armed Forces 25 0.05% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16 0.53% 0 0.00% 41 0.05%
Civilian labor force 33,718 73.70% 1,486 91.56% 3,617 72.73% 5,167 57.47% 3,404 60.92% 2,027 66.52% 15,395 59.22% 59,647 68.58%
Employed 32,044 70.04% 1,438 88.60% 3,396 68.29% 4,917 54.69% 2,911 52.09% 1,913 62.78% 13,808 53.12% 55,510 63.82%
Unemployed 1,674 3.66% 48 2.96% 221 4.44% 250 2.78% 493 8.82% 114 3.74% 1,587 6.10% 4,137 4.76%
Not in labor force 12,007 26.24% 137 8.44% 1,356 27.27% 3,823 42.53% 2,184 39.08% 1,004 32.95% 10,601 40.78% 27,289 31.37%
Commuting to Work
Workers 16 years and over 31,231 100.00% 1,421 100.00% 3,352 100.00% 4,825 100.00% 2,876 100.00% 1,903 100.00% 13,500 100.00% 54,283 100.00%
Car, truck, or van - - drove alone 21,917 70.18% 618 43.49% 2,443 72.88% 3,339 69.20% 1,615 56.15% 1,186 62.32% 9,163 67.87% 36,942 68.05%
Car, truck, or van - - carpooled 4,675 14.97% 141 9.92% 572 17.06% 426 8.83% 763 26.53% 334 17.55% 2,493 18.47% 8,978 16.54%
Public transportation (including
taxicab)
185 0.59% 41 2.89% 29 0.87% 0.00% 4 0.14% 16 0.84% 101 0.75% 376 0.69%
Walked 2,060 6.60% 531 37.37% 147 4.39% 232 4.81% 390 13.56% 210 11.04% 779 5.77% 4,117 7.58%
Other means 1,276 4.09% 77 5.42% 103 3.07% 154 3.19% 45 1.56% 46 2.42% 245 1.81% 1,792 3.30%
Worked at home 1,118 3.58% 13 0.91% 58 1.73% 674 13.97% 59 2.05% 111 5.83% 719 5.33% 2,078 3.83%
Mean travel time to work (minutes)1 84 - - 10 14 - - - 19 (X)
Vehicles Available per Household
Occupied housing units 21,416 100.00% 864 100.00% 2,342 100.00% 4,937 100.00% 2,231 100.00% 1,535 100.00% 12,060 100.00% 40,448 100.00%
None 1,274 5.95% 103 11.92% 114 4.87% 161 3.26% 206 9.23% 114 7.43% 979 8.12% 2,790 6.90%
1 7,428 34.68% 395 45.72% 794 33.90% 1,811 36.68% 1,027 46.03% 463 30.16% 3,742 31.03% 13,849 34.20%
2 8,762 40.91% 289 33.45% 947 40.44% 2,183 44.22% 672 30.12% 546 35.57% 4,587 38.03% 15,803 39.10%
3 or more 3,902 18.22% 77 8.91% 487 20.79% 782 15.84% 326 14.61% 412 26.84% 2,802 23.23% 8,006 19.80%
House Heating Fuel
Occupied housing units 21,416 100.00% 864 100.00% 2,342 100.00% 4,937 100.00% 2,231 100.00% 1,535 100.00% 12,060 100.00% 40,448 100.00%
Utility gas 17,440 81.43% 113 13.08% 623 26.60% 3,663 74.19% 210 9.41% 897 58.44% 3,025 25.08% 22,308 55.15%
Bottled, tank, or LP gas 918 4.29% 362 41.90% 170 7.26% 327 6.62% 934 41.86% 320 20.85% 3,529 29.26% 6,233 15.41%
Electricity 2,147 10.03% 254 29.40% 1,118 47.74% 838 16.97% 274 12.28% 127 8.27% 1,123 9.31% 5,043 12.47%
Fuel oil, kerosene, etc 69 0.32% 41 4.75% - 0.00% 0.00% 11 0.49% 3 0.20% 87 0.72% 211 0.52%
Coal or coke 0 0.00% 0 0.00% - 0.00% 0.00% 55 2.47% 0 0.00% 6 0.05% 61 0.15%
Wood 799 3.73% 89 10.30% 368 15.71% 7 0.14% 729 32.68% 177 11.53% 4,192 34.76% 6,354 15.71%
Solar energy 14 0.07% 0 0.00% - 0.00% 8 0.16% 0 0.00% 7 0.46% 29 0.24% 50 0.12%
Other fuel 16 0.07% 5 0.58% 63- 2.69% 0.00% 18 0.81% 2 0.13% 40 0.33% 144 0.36%
No fuel used 13 0.06% 0 0.00% 0.00% 31 0.63% 0 0.00% 2 0.13% 29 0.24% 44 0.11%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.
1If the denominator of a mean value or per capita value is less than 30, then that value is calculated using a rounded aggregate in the numerator.
- Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X) = Not applicable.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 7
AIR QUALITY IN COCONINO COUNTY
The air in Coconino County is healthy to breathe, according to monitoring data collected
by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, the National Park Service, and the
Salt River Project. Violations of the national ambient air quality standards do not occur in
the County. However, on some days regional haze causes perceptible reductions in
visibility. This section describes the air quality, meteorology, and sources of emissions in
Coconino County.
Sources of Air Pollution
In response to the Clean Air Act of 1977, the EPA established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for six pollutants that can adversely affect human health and welfare.
These six, called criteria pollutants, are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,
particulates, and sulfur dioxide. In general, the sources of emissions contributing to
formation of these six criteria pollutants and regional haze can be grouped into five major
categories: on-road vehicles, non-road engines, point sources, area sources, and
miscellaneous sources.
• On-road vehicles are powered by gasoline and diesel fuel and include automobiles,
light duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles. This category
represents a significant source of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic
compound, and particulate emissions.
• Non-road engines include lawn and garden equipment, construction equipment,
farm equipment, off-road vehicles, aircraft, and trains. This source is a smaller,
but growing source of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic
compounds, and particulate emissions.
• Point sources include large industrial operations such as electric utilities,
manufacturing plants, metals processing facilities, chemical plants, and mines.
Sulfur dioxide and lead are emitted primarily by point sources. Industrial
processes can also be a major contributor of volatile organic compounds. Other
criteria pollutants or precursors may be emitted by a point source depending upon
the type of industrial operation.
• Area sources are emission-producing activities conducted over a broad and variable
geographic area, such as painting, dry cleaning, construction activity, and wood
combustion. Area sources tend to be a major source of volatile organic compounds
and particulates. One or more of the other criteria pollutants or precursors may
also be emitted by an area source depending upon the type of activity.
• Miscellaneous sources include forest fires, agricultural fires, and wind blown dust.
These three miscellaneous sources emit particulates and also contribute to hazy
conditions.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 8
Location of Stationary Sources
Potential stationary sources of air pollutants include electrical power plants, mining
operations, and other industrial sites. More than a dozen facilities operate within or
adjacent to Coconino County that emit significant amounts of carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), or ammonia (NH3). The Environmental Protection
Agency monitors the activities of these stationary sources and tracks the tons of pollutants
each generates annually.[3] The latest data for these facilities—1999—is presented in Table
3, and the locations of the facilities are shown in Figure 1. The first column of Table 3 is
a “Map Key” that lists numbers on Figure 1 that show the location of the facilities.
The site that produces the most emissions is the Navajo Generating Station. This facility
emits almost six times as much total tons of emissions as the next largest source. The
Navajo Generating Station is also the largest source of each of the pollutants with the
exception of VOCs. One of the El Paso Natural Gas facilities east of Flagstaff produces
nearly five times the VOCs than the Navajo facility emits.
Monitoring Data
In 2000, there were nine air quality monitors operating in Coconino County: two in
Flagstaff, two at the Grand Canyon, two in Sycamore Canyon, and one each at Page,
Sedona, and the Tusayan airport.[4] Table 4 identifies the location of each monitor, the
operator, and the pollutants measured. Sampling ended in 2000 at the monitor located at
Tusayan Airport.
Carbon monoxide is not monitored in Coconino County, because the concentrations are
known to be far below the standard. Carbon monoxide levels have declined significantly
in all parts of Arizona as a result of catalytic converters and electronic ignition systems in
new vehicles.
Lead is monitored in Coconino County, but lead concentrations have fallen dramatically
over the last twenty-five years, as a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline and the
implementation of stationary source fuel combustion controls. In general, lead
concentrations are a small fraction of the federal standards at all 16 monitors operating in
Arizona.
Recent air quality data collected at monitors in Coconino County show no violations of the
national ambient air quality standards. Ozone is the only pollutant that approaches the
standard on hot summer days. In 1998-2000, the highest eight-hour ozone readings at the
South Rim of the Grand Canyon were about 90 percent of the standard. During this same
period, peak concentrations in Page were 80 percent of the standard.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 9
TABLE 3. TONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS EMITTED ANNUALLY BY AREA INDUSTRIES (1999)
Pollutant
Map
Key County Plant Name
SIC
Code VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 NH3
Total
Emissions
1 Coconino Intermountain Refining 2951 4.68 62.52 2.87 795.08 NA NA NA 865.15
2 Coconino Kaibab Forest Products 2421 NA NA NA NA 31.61 12.06 0.06 31.67
3 Coconino Navajo Generating Station 4911 232.59 35275.24 1939.23 9162.60 1886.10 855.69 2.66 48498.42
4 Coconino Transwestern Pipeline 4922 62.29 1377.72 175.05 1.19 2.06 1.45 NA 1618.31
5 Coconino El Paso Natural Gas Co. 4922 1073.18 2812.01 378.05 0.56 NA NA NA 4263.80
6 Coconino Transwestern Pipeline 4922 14.49 619.53 533.29 0.14 2.29 1.61 NA 1169.74
7 Coconino El Paso Natural Gas Co. 4922 98.87 2450.12 316.80 0.38 NA NA NA 2866.17
8 Coconino Ralston Purina Company 2048 0.62 29.09 2.45 26.76 6.63 3.71 NA 65.55
9 Coconino Northern Arizona University 8221 0.41 54.51 5.08 0.08 0.44 0.41 NA 60.52
10 Coconino U. S. Army Navajo Depot 4911 0.16 2.98 0.65 1.28 0.14 0.05 NA 5.21
11 Coconino El Paso Natural Gas Co. 4922 161.18 7493.56 955.96 1.79 NA NA NA 8612.49
12 Yavapai El Paso Natural Gas Co. 4922 NA 94.59 NA 0.08 NA NA NA 94.67
13 Yavapai Chemical Lime Company 1499 NA 1196.83 866.95 1404.61 NA NA NA 3468.39
14 Yavapai Phoenix Cement 3241 NA 2648.31 296.85 407.83 157.58 52.9 NA 3510.57
15 Gila Payson Regional Medical Ctr. 4959 NA 0.17 0.03 NA 0.17 0.17 NA 0.37
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Emission Trends database
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 10
FIGURE 1. LOCATIONS OF INDUSTRIES EMITTING CO, NOx, VOC, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, OR NH3
IN OR NEAR COCONINO COUNTY
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Emission Trends database
Grand Canyon
National Park
Petrified Forest
National Park
Baldy Peak
Wilderness
Mazatzal
Wilderness
Pine Mountain
Wilderness
Sycamore Canyon
Wilderness
1
1
2
1. Intermountain Refining
2. Kaibab Forest Products
3. Navajo Generating Station
4. Transwestern Pipeline
5. El Paso Natural Gas
6. Transwestern Pipeline
3
8 7 6 5 4
10 9
14
15
12 11
13
7. El Paso Natural Gas
8. Ralston Purina
9. Northern Arizona University
10. U. S. Army Navajo Depot
11. El Paso Natural Gas
12. El Paso Natural Gas
13. Chemical Lime
14. Phoenix Cement
15. Payson Regional Medical Center
Plant In or Near Coconino County
Other Plant site in Northern Arizona
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 11
TABLE 4. AIR QUALITY MONITORS IN COCONINO COUNTY
Monitor Location Operator Pollutant
Flagstaff, ADOT 5701 E. Railroad Ave ADEQ PM10
Flagstaff, Middle School 755 N. Bonito ADEQ PM10, PM2.5
Grand Canyon, Hance Camp S. Rim, 2.5 mi W. of Village NPS O3, Pb, Visibility
Grand Canyon, Indian
Gardens
4.5 mi from Bright Angel
T.H.
NPS Visibility, Pb
Page, Navajo Generating
Station
3 mi E. of Page SRP O3, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, SO2
Sedona Post Office ADEQ PM10
Sycamore Canyon Camp Raymond ADEQ Light Scattering (PM)
Sycamore Canyon Camp Raymond NPS Visibility
Tusayan Airport ADEQ PM10, PM2.5
Source: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Other pollutants measured in Coconino County are well below the applicable standards.
Nitrogen dioxide at the Page Navajo Generating Station is 96 percent less than the
standard. Particulates in the County are one-third of the annual standard or less, while
24-hour concentrations are even lower. The sulfur dioxide levels measured at Page are
negligible.
The only pollutant currently measured in Flagstaff is particulate matter. The Middle
School monitor collects particle samples that are smaller than 10 microns (PM10) and
smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The ADOT monitor measures PM10 only. During the
mid-1980’s, annual concentrations of PM10 in Flagstaff averaged nearly 40 μg/m3, or
almost 80 percent of the standard. In recent years, annual PM10 levels have averaged only
15 μg/m3, representing more than a 60 percent decline since 1985. This reduction can be
attributed to the paving of dirt roads, cleaner burning woodstoves and fireplaces, and
smoke management programs.
Meteorology
Meteorology plays an important role in the formation, transport, and dispersion of air
pollution. In general, the driest years will produce the highest annual PM10 concentrations.
Dry years with especially windy days can also lead to higher 24-hour PM10 concentrations.
Cold winters can result in higher PM2.5 due to increased use of fireplaces and wood stoves.
The photochemical reaction that produces ground-level ozone occurs at ambient
temperatures over 90 degrees Fahrenheit; so hotter summers typically produce higher
ozone readings.
Relative humidity also plays an important role in the formation of sulfates and nitrates that
contribute to regional haze. Higher humidity increases the size of sulfate and nitrate
particles, which in turn, increases their ability to scatter light. (Light scattering and
absorption are the two phenomena that cause the extinction of light by regional haze.)
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 12
Higher humidity is one reason that regional haze is worse in the Eastern U. S. than the
West.
The prevailing wind direction at the Flagstaff airport throughout the year is from the
South/Southwest. This means that pollutants transported from Phoenix, Yuma, and
Southern California may contribute to regional haze hanging over the Colorado Plateau and
Coconino County.[5]
The Impact of Emissions on Area Visibility
Figure 2 illustrates the downward trend in annual PM10 concentrations in Flagstaff and
other locations in Arizona between 1985 and 2000. The PM10 data for the Grand Canyon
represents the average levels on the 20 percent worst visibility days as measured by the
IMPROVE monitors in 1990 through 1999.[6] PM10 levels at the Grand Canyon have not
exhibited the same downward trend as other locations in Arizona. Figure 3 illustrates the
trends in visibility at the Grand Canyon between 1990 and 1999. A change of one
deciview is perceptible to the human eye. Unfortunately, visibility on the haziest or
clearest days has not improved perceptibly over the ten-year period.
FIGURE 2. ANNUAL PM10 TRENDS IN ARIZONA
0
20
40
60
80
u g /m 3
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Flagstaff
Organ Pipe
Payson
Phoenix
Grand Canyon1
Standard
1Average PM concentrations on 20% worst visibility days 10
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 13
FIGURE 3. TRENDS IN VISIBILITY AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) has recently developed emissions data by
county for pollutants contributing to regional haze in the western U.S.[7] These data are
being used to model current and projected visibility impairment in Class I areas, including
the Grand Canyon. The latest mobile source emissions for Coconino County, derived
from the WRAP inventories, are shown in Figure 4.
As Figure 4 indicates, total mobile source emissions in Coconino County are expected to
decline by more than 40 percent by 2018. This reduction is due primarily to Tier 2 light-duty
standards, beginning with the 2004 model year, stricter heavy-duty vehicle and engine
controls, beginning with the 2007 model year, and low-sulfur gasoline and diesel fuels,
beginning in mid-2006. The magnitude of the decline in mobile source emissions is even
more impressive when you consider that the WRAP assumed vehicle-miles of travel in
Coconino County would grow by 70 percent between 1996 and 2018.
Visibility Modeling
In mid-2002, WRAP consultants conducted modeling to determine the impact of the
Federal Tier 2 and heavy duty vehicle and fuel controls, and other measures implemented
since 1996, on visibility in the Grand Canyon, Sycamore Canyon, and other Class I parks
and wilderness areas. Visibility on the worst days is expected to improve by .44 deciviews
at the Grand Canyon, but deteriorate by .81 deciviews at Sycamore Canyon. [7]
Year
Measurements of Haze (in Deciviews) and Its Effect on Visibility
Deciviews
Worst visibility
range is
63 - 79 miles
Best visibility
range is
140- 143 miles
A deciview is a measurement of haze that gauges the impact air pollutants have on visibility.
Zero deciviews is an indicator of clear conditions with no visibility impairment. The more
deciviews measured, the more visibility impairment that limits the distance that can be seen.
Worst and best visibility lines represent averages of the 20% worst and best visibility days,
respectively, during a given year.
Source: IMPROVE monitoring data from Colorado State University for the GRCA site
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 14
FIGURE 4. 1996-2018 TOTAL COCONINO COUNTY
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
The impact which Coconino County emissions may have on present and future visibility at
the Grand Canyon and Sycamore Canyon has not been explicitly modeled by the WRAP.
However, some portion of the anthropogenic emissions contributing to regional haze at
these sites is produced locally.
One-third to one-half of the haze on the worst days is attributable to natural light particle
(Rayleigh) scattering. Figure 5 indicates that sulfates represent 43 percent of the human-caused
visibility problems in the Grand Canyon. [8] Sulfates are produced primarily by
power plants and industrial boilers. Crustal material from paved and unpaved roads and
construction activities contribute another 24 percent. The sources of these emissions are
likely to be very close to the Grand Canyon, because coarse particles are relatively heavy
and tend to deposit within a small radius of their source. The remaining pieces of the
pie—organic carbon, elemental carbon, and the non-industrial portion of the nitrates—are
emitted primarily by automobile and truck exhaust and combustion sources. In a worst
case scenario, these sources in Coconino County would contribute about 20 percent of the
regional haze at the Grand Canyon on a bad visibility day.
While the prevailing wind direction (south/southwest) minimizes the transport of emissions
from Flagstaff to the Grand Canyon and Sycamore Canyon, other downwind Class I areas
(i.e. Mesa Verde, Canyonlands, Arches, Weminuche) may experience visibility
impairment as a result of emissions from Coconino County. In addition, the source
attribution pie chart in Figure 5 and the modeling performed by the WRAP represent
average meteorological and emission conditions. On any given day, if the wind were
blowing from the Northeast or Southeast, Coconino County would contribute a greater
portion of the visibility degradation at the Grand Canyon, Sycamore Canyon, and/or other
downwind areas.
Tons/Day
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996 200 2004 2008 2012 2016 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
Year
Total (Includes PM , PM , SO , VOC, NO , and CO) 10 2.5 2 X
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 15
FIGURE 5. POLLUTANTS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO REDUCED VISIBILITY
ON THE WORST DAYS IN 1997 AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Summary
In summary, the major pollutants of concern for Coconino County are ozone, PM2.5 and
PM10. Ozone is a potential problem because recent readings at the Grand Canyon show
eight-hour ozone levels to be within 90 percent of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard. PM2.5 levels need to be controlled in order to reduce their contribution to
formation of regional haze. PM10 also contributes to regional haze, although the coarser
fraction (greater than PM2.5) does not travel as far as the smaller fraction. To be most
effective in reducing visibility impairment at the Grand Canyon and Sycamore Canyon,
Coconino County efforts to reduce PM10 should focus on areas close to these Class I areas.
Sulfates
43%
Nitrates
8.5%
Elemental Carbon
8.5%
Crustal Material
24%
Organic Carbon
16%
Sulfates - predominantly
from utility and industrial
boilers
Nitrates - predominantly
from automobiles and
utility and industrial
boilers
Organic carbon particles -
from sources such as
automobiles, trucks, and
other industrial processes
Elemental carbon (soot) -
from diesel, wood, and
other combustion
Crustal material (soil dust) -
from roads, construction, and
agricultural activities
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 16
3. VISIONING SESSION
This chapter describes the elements of the Visioning Session, including the presentations
made by the Project Team and by Northern Arizona University Professor Terry Baxter and
the feedback obtained from Session participants. Visioning Session attendees are listed in
Table 5.
PRESENTATIONS
Background material prepared by the Project Team was E-mailed to Visioning Session
attendees in advance for review. Highlights of the background material and three
PowerPoint presentations were presented at the Visioning Session.
The background material presented at the Visioning Session included the goal and
objectives of this ADOT-funded study; local socioeconomic conditions; national and state
air pollutants, standards, sources, and trends; and air quality data, plans, and programs for
Coconino County.
Dr. Terry Baxter, Ph.D., P.E., of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
at NAU made a 35 mm slide presentation entitled, “We Can’t Afford Polluted Air!” Dr.
Baxter’s presentation emphasized the medical and aesthetic importance of maintaining
healthy air and improving visibility in the region.
Dr. Baxter indicated that the overarching goal should be to maintain a high quality of life
and healthful environment. He cited three important reasons to sustain good air quality in
the area: tourism, telescopes, and toddlers. He indicated that the number one cause of
school days missed is asthma and air pollution is one factor causing these attacks. To
support this contention, he stated that during the Rodeo-Chedeski fire in the summer of
2002 the Prescott hospital recorded the highest number of admissions in its history.
Dr. Baxter identified two air pollution threats to the community: ozone and PM2.5. He
expressed concern that high concentrations of ozone may exist in parts of the County that
are not being monitored. He indicated that PM2.5 is a problem from both a health and
visibility perspective and that high concentrations are typically caused by residential wood
smoke, controlled and uncontrolled forest fires, and temperature inversions. These
inversions trap polluted air near the ground on winter mornings.
Dr. Baxter pointed out that visibility at the Grand Canyon is worst during the summer
months. The number of days when visibility is good at the Grand Canyon has declined to
only 10 percent of the days in a year. Visibility at the Grand Canyon is also considered to
be poor on about 10 percent of the days.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 17
TABLE 5. PERSONS WHO ATTENDED APRIL 30 VISIONING SESSION
Organization Representative
Arizona Department of Transportation Pat Cupell, Sr. Transportation Planner
BNSF Railway Mike McCallister, BNSF Project Engineer
City of Flagstaff Hon. Libby Silva, Vice Mayor
City of Sedona Charles Mosley, Engineer
Coconino County Gene Stanley, County Surveyor
Coconino County Hon. Paul Babbitt, County Supervisor
Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce Thomas Vincent, Government Affairs
Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization David Wessel, Planner
Friends of Flagstaff's Future Becky Daggett, Executive Director
Grand Canyon Trust Rick Moore
Mountain Line Jeff Meilbeck, General Manager
Northern Arizona University Terry Baxter, Ph.D.
Project Team Cathy Arthur, Rob Bohannan
Dr. Baxter posed the question, “How can we make a difference at the local and national
levels?” He recommends that cost-effective air quality measures be implemented and
advocates the placement of additional air quality monitors in the County. In addition, he
believes the County or local jurisdictions should track state, regional and national
environmental issues. He is especially concerned about the lack of control over federal
policies and the potential rollback of initiatives such as the New Source Review Program
and “Clear Skies”.
After lunch, the Project Team provided an overview of potential air quality improvement
strategies that could be implemented by local governments in Coconino County. Measures
such as vehicle inspection and maintenance, reformulated fuels, and vapor recovery
systems at gas stations were excluded from consideration, because these require State
legislation.
Fifty air quality improvement strategies were described, along with the pollutants they
reduce, and the most-likely mechanism for implementation (i.e., ordinance, voluntary
program, municipal plan, municipal program, or zoning). Examples of municipalities that
have already implemented these measures were also identified.
FEEDBACK FROM VISIONING GROUP
Session attendees provided feedback on their collective air quality vision for Coconino
County. The feedback provided during four interactive phases of the session,
Introductions, Brainstorm Strategic Issues, Formulate the Vision Statement, and Prioritize
Air Quality Improvement Strategies, is described below.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 18
Introductions
To kick-off the session, attendees were asked to introduce themselves and describe what
they considered to be the most important air quality issues facing Coconino County. The
issues mentioned by the group are summarized in Table 6. Most notable about the
responses is the breadth of the issues identified. This suggests that the participants
represented diverse constituencies and interest groups within their communities and
brought considerable knowledge and understanding of air quality issues to the session.
TABLE 6. IMPORTANT AIR QUALITY ISSUES FOR COCONINO COUNTY
1. Single occupant vehicles (SOVs) [2]
2. Trucks on I-40 and I-17 [2]
3. Fireplaces, wood stoves and other wood burning [5]
4. Transport of pollution from Los Angeles
5. Navajo Generating Station and other large stationary sources [2]
6. Construction dust
7. Other sources of dust
8. Cinders used to de-ice roads
9. Transportation sources [2]
10. National policies
11. Lake Powell and the Grand Canyon
12. Tourist traffic
13. Traffic congestion
14. Older vehicles
15. Unpaved roads
16. Prescribed fires and the drought
[ ] – Number of times mentioned by visioning group
Members of the group identified motor vehicles as an air quality issue nine times (i.e.,
single occupant vehicles, trucks on I-40 and I-17, transportation sources, tourist traffic,
traffic congestion, and older vehicles), while fireplaces, wood stoves and other wood
burning were cited five times. Note that dust generating activities were mentioned three
times (i.e. construction, unpaved roads, and other dust) and two of large stationary sources
such as the Navajo Generating Station in Page.
Brainstorming Strategic Issues
During lunch, the visioning group participated in a brainstorming session to identify
strategic issues associated with improving air quality in Coconino County. This type of
exercise is called a Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (S.W.O.T.) analysis.
Table 7 summarizes the results.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 19
TABLE 7. S.W.O.T. ANALYSIS FOR COCONINO COUNTY
With respect to improving air quality in Coconino County, the following represent
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Constraints
Groups like F3 – Friends
of Flagstaff’s Future,
Keep Sedona Beautiful
Low per-capita
income
Persons can benefit from transit
financially
Proposed additional
power plants on
Colorado Plateau
Need Tribal input
Recognition of air quality
as valuable natural
resource
Rural nature of
county leads to auto
dependence
broad based support for protecting
“golden goose” quality of life visual
appeal of area (feds)
Population growth Large Size of county
leads to auto
dependence
Large enough to be
sophisticated, small
enough to be agile
Older vehicle fleets 15% wood use – could reduce Catastrophic Forest
fires
Fed regs (Clear Skies,
Pollution Trading)
Good planning tradition State laws governing
subdivisions wildcat
subs (dirt roads)
Exchange with Tribes – wood stoves,
education County & Flagstaff work with
Indian communities on building codes,
technology exchange
Lack of regional rule
making or consensus
(CA)
State laws governing
subdivisions
Coop effort between
govt. agencies, culture of
peer coop
Unpaved Tribal roads
– other rural areas
Renewable energy – new sources Balance air, water,
waste
Proximity to California
– California power
made in Arizona
Transport
Low emissions to area
ratio
Lack of resources for
Renewable energy
Alternatives to campfires in parks and
forests
Limited resources for
attainment areas
Attractiveness of Visual
amenities clear air task
force
High use of wood for
heat (Census)
Air quality crosses jurisdictional
boundaries
Attainment area National Parks in close proximity
(Federal support)
WRAP, NAU
(information resources)
Small diameter Logs
Solar potential Tuba City facility (renewable energy)
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 20
Some key strengths identified for Coconino County are
• Air quality is already recognized as a valuable natural resource
• A strong tradition of planning and cooperation in the region exists
• Groups such as Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, Keep Sedona Beautiful, and the
Grand Canyon Trust provide strong environmental leadership
• A wealth of information and technical resources such as NAU and the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) are available
• Excellent potential for the generation of solar energy exists;
• Area is large enough to be sophisticated, but small enough to be agile.
Weaknesses cited include low per-capita income, the rural nature of the area leading to
auto dependence, and a high use of wood for heating. Examples of opportunities for
redressing these weaknesses and improving air quality include exchanging information with
the Tribal communities, developing sources of renewable energy, proximity to national
parks (attracting Federal resources), and broad-based community support for protecting the
quality of life and visual appeal of the area.
Some threats to improving air quality include proposed new power plants on the Colorado
Plateau; population growth; catastrophic forest fires; lack of regional rule-making and
influence on other states such as California; and balancing the management of air quality,
water quality, and solid waste.
Constraints on improving air quality include the need for Tribal input, the large size of the
County, federal regulations, state laws allowing wildcat subdivisions, proximity to and
producing power for California, and the limited resources available for attainment areas
such as Coconino County.
Formulate Vision Statement
After participating in the S.W.O.T. analysis, members of the group were asked to
contribute phrases that would be suitable in an air quality vision statement for Coconino
County. The following vision statement paragraph and supporting language were
developed using concepts provided by the participants:
In 1958, a TWA pilot who had just flown across America radioed the control tower
that “The cleanest air on the continent was in Flagstaff Arizona.” Coconino
County will preserve and protect this reputation: All levels of government in the
County will work together to preserve healthy air, improve visibility, and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Coconino County will recognize agencies that advocate
clean air or help improve air quality and encourage alternatives to single occupancy
vehicles such as carpools, buses, bicycles, and walking. The County will also
encourage the use of new technologies such as solar energy and telecommuting.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 21
The County will think globally but act locally to enhance our air quality and
environment.
To support this vision, concepts presented by participants together with the findings of
previous air quality sustainability efforts suggest the following action items:
Establishment of an Air Quality Steering Committee
Development and implementation of an Education/Outreach Program
Identification and implementation of voluntary air quality preservation measures
Development and implementation of plans, policies, ordinances, and services such
as a response system to provide advisories on ambient or predicted air quality
conditions
After concepts for inclusion in the Vision Statement and supporting language were
recorded, candidate strategies for realizing the concepts were evaluated by the participants
as described in the following section.
Prioritize Air Quality Improvement Strategies
After reviewing potential air quality improvement strategies, each member of the visioning
group received fifty 3” x 5” index cards. Each index card described an improvement
strategy, the pollutants reduced, and the most-likely implementation mechanism. Each of
the 50 strategies was assigned to 1 of 10 categories and assigned a number relating it to the
category. Hence the ten strategies for controlling fugitive dust, for example, were
assigned numbers 1.1 through 1.10. Table 8 identifies the categories used in classifying
the strategies by source or type of control.
TABLE 8. CATEGORIES USED IN CLASSIFYING AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
Category Strategies Source or Type of Control
1 1.1-1.10 Fugitive Dust
2 2.1-2.3 Unpaved Roads
3 3.1-3.3 Paved Roads
4 4.1-4.8 Wood Burning Controls
5 5.1-5.3 Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Equipment
6 6.1-6.2 Agriculture (none in Coconino County)
7 7.1-7.3 Vehicles
8 8.1-8.4 Transportation Control Measures
9 9.1-9.3 Land Use and Growth Controls
10 10.1-10.13 Other Controls
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 22
First, the group was asked to identify those measures that would not be appropriate for
implementation in Coconino County. A strategy was discarded only if everyone in the
group agreed to remove it. During this first phase, seven strategies were eliminated from
further consideration.
Each member of the group was then provided with ten adhesive dots and instructed to
“vote” for air quality strategies by applying dots to the index cards. More than one dot
could be applied to a single card. The cards were then collected and the votes tallied.
Table 9 summarizes the results of this prioritization process. A category number is shown
next to each strategy in Table 9.
The air quality improvement strategy receiving the most votes was “Encourage Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Sources of Energy” (11). The second highest number of votes
was cast for “Educational and Outreach Campaign to Sustain Clean Air” (8). The first
eight strategies each received four or more votes.
The similar strategies, “Stabilize Unpaved Roads and Alleys” and “Reduce Speed Limits
on Unpaved Roads,” together received a total of five votes. So “Stabilize or Reduce
Speeds on Unpaved Roads” has been included as the ninth strategy in Table 10. To round
out the top ten and include a strategy that reduces diesel emissions, “Retrofit Municipal
Diesel Vehicles” has also been added to Table 10.
Table 10 identifies how these strategies support the three main goals identified in the vision
statement: (1) preserve healthy air (i.e. reduce carbon monoxide, volatile organic
compound, nitrogen oxide, or particulate emissions), (2) improve visibility, and (3) reduce
greenhouse gases.
The next chapter discusses how each of these air quality improvement strategies might be
incorporated into a Clean Air Action Plan for Coconino County.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 23
TABLE 9. VOTING RESULTS FOR AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
STRATEGIES
Category
# Air Quality Improvement Strategy
# of
Votes
10.11 Encourage Energy Efficiency and Renewable Sources of Energy 11
10.8 Educational and Outreach Campaign to Sustain Clean Air 8
8.1 Alternatives to Single Occupant Vehicle Travel 6
1.1/1.6 Fugitive Dust Control Plans with Mitigation Bond Requirements 5
4.1 Clean Burning Fireplaces in New Construction 5
4.3 Episode Curtailment Program for Wood Smoke 5
9.2
Innovative Land Use Planning to Encourage Multi-modal
Opportunities
5
10.13
Integrate Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality Decision-making
4
2.1 Stabilize Unpaved Roads and Alleys 3
4.8 Smoke Management Programs 3
8.3 Retrofit Municipal Diesel Vehicles 3
7.1 Encourage Conversion to Alternative Fuels 3
9.3 Attract "Green" Industries 3
10.5 Voluntary Business Community Emissions Reductions 3
10.10 Ozone Awareness Program 3
1.7 Limitations on Opacity 2
1.10 Control Dust on Public Property 2
2.2 Reduce Speed Limits on Unpaved Roads 2
2.3 Limit Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Property 2
3.1 Deploy PM10 Efficient Street Sweepers 2
4.2 Retrofit Existing Fireplaces and Wood Stoves 2
5.2 Inventory Diesel Equipment and Upgrade/Replace High Emitters 2
7.3 Voluntary High Emitter Vehicle Repair/Replacement Program 2
8.4 Employer-Based Measures 2
9.1 Growth Boundaries or Other Limitations 2
1.2 Control Bulk Material Transport 1
3.2 Rapid Cleanup of Material Deposits on Paved Roads 1
4.4 Public Information Program on Fireplaces and Wood Smoke 1
4.7 Provide Alternative Heating Options 1
5.1 Limit Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling 1
8.2 Traffic Flow Measures 1
8.3 Market Based Measures 1
10.1 Restaurant Charbroiler Controls 1
10.7 Apply Maximum Allowable Increases 1
10.12 Expand Air Quality Monitoring 1
Total 100
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 24
TABLE 10. HOW STRATEGIES SUPPORT THE AIR QUALITY GOALS
Strategy
Preserve
Healthy
air
Improve
Visibility
Reduce
Greenhouse
Gases
1. Encourage Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Sources of Energy
X X X
2. Educational and Outreach Program to
Sustain Clean Air
X X X
3. Alternatives to SOV Travel X X X
4. Fugitive Dust Control Plans with
Mitigation Bond Requirements
X X
5. Clean Burning Fireplaces in New
Construction
X X X
6. Episode Curtailment Program for Wood
Smoke
X X X
7 Innovative Land Use Planning to
Encourage Multi-modal Opportunities
X X X
8. Integrate Land Use, Transportation, and
Air Quality Decision-making
X X X
9. Stabilize or Reduce Speeds on Unpaved
Roads
X* X*
10. Retrofit Municipal Diesel Vehicles X X
*Close to the source
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 25
4. CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN
The preferred strategies developed during the visioning session in Flagstaff on April 30,
2003 provide the foundation for a Clean Air Action Plan for Coconino County. The top
ten strategies to be implemented as part of the Clean Air Action Plan are described below.
PREFERRED STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING AIR QUALITY
The strategies are presented in the order they were ranked by the Coconino County
Visioning group. Key characteristics of the top ten strategies are summarized in Table 11.
A more detailed discussion of each air quality improvement strategy is provided below.
1. Encourage Energy Efficiency and Renewable Sources of Energy
This strategy received the highest number of votes from visioning session participants.
More efficient use of energy can be achieved by reducing consumption of electricity.
Renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass sources has the potential to
reduce the depletion of fossil fuels.
Considerable research on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources has been
conducted by the WRAP. The WRAP was formed in 1997 to carry out the
recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The
Commission was established by Congress in the early 1990's to determine how to protect
and improve visibility in 16 parks and wilderness areas on the Colorado Plateau, including
both the Grand Canyon and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area in Coconino County.
In 2003 the WRAP recommended policies and programs that could be implemented by
states, tribes, and the Federal government to increase efficient use of energy and
consumption and generation of power from renewable sources. Many of the WRAP
recommendations are also applicable to local communities. For example, some “best
practices” to foster energy efficiency at the local level are summarized in Table 12.[9]
Energy Efficiency. The WRAP found that there are a wide range of cost-effective energy
efficiency measures in existence, but there are barriers that prevent their widespread
penetration. The WRAP supported the implementation of financial incentives and
mandatory energy efficiency standards on the part of states and tribes. Other
recommended actions to promote reduced energy consumption included consumer
information and education, utility and environmental regulatory policies, and utility rate
reforms. Additional information on the best practices for energy efficiency can be found at
http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ap2/documents/draft/ Best_Efficiency_Measures_for_West.pdf.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 26
TABLE 11. CHARACTERISTICS OF PREFERRED AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
Air Quality Improvement
Strategy
Implementation
Mechanism
Pollutants
Reduced*
Sources of
Pollutants Groups Affected
1. Encourage Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Sources of
Energy
Municipal
Policies
CO2, NOx Power Plants
Utilities, Homeowners, Commercial
and Municipal Energy Consumers,
Renewable Energy Providers
2. Conduct Education/Outreach
Program to Sustain Clean Air “Air Aware”
Program
CO, CO2,VOC,
NOx, PM2.5,
PM10
Light Duty
Vehicles, Wood-burning,
Power
Plants
Residents, Businesses, Teachers,
Students, Utilities, Renewable
Energy Providers
3. Encourage Alternatives to
Single Occupant Vehicle
Travel
Municipal
Programs
CO, VOC, NOx,
PM2.5, PM10
Light Duty
Vehicles
Commuters
4. Dust Control Plans with
Mitigation Bond Requirements Ordinances PM10
Construction and
Earthmoving
Activities
Construction Industry, Highway
Contractors
5. Clean Burning Fireplaces in
New Construction
Ordinances NOx, PM2.5, PM10 Wood-burning
Homeowners, Business Owners,
Construction Industry
6. Episode Curtailment Program
for Wood Smoke
Ordinances NOx, PM2.5, PM10 Wood-burning Homeowners, Business Owners
7. Innovative Land Use Planning
to Encourage Multi-Modal
Opportunities
Municipal
Planning and
Zoning
CO, VOC, NOx,
PM2.5, PM10
Light Duty
Vehicles
Residents, NAU, Businesses
8. Integrate Land Use,
Transportation, and Air
Quality Decision-Making
Municipal
Policies and
Planning
CO, VOC, NOx,
PM2.5, PM10
Light Duty
Vehicles
Local Governments, Regional
Planning Agencies
9. Stabilize or Reduce Speeds on
Unpaved Roads
Municipal
Programs
PM10
Vehicles Traveling
on Dirt Roads
Residents living on dirt roads,
Others who drive on dirt roads
10. Retrofit Municipal Diesel
Vehicles and Equipment
Municipal
Programs
CO, VOC, NOx,
PM2.5, PM10
Heavy Duty Diesel
Trucks and
Equipment
Local governments
*CO – carbon monoxide, CO2 – carbon dioxide, VOC – volatile organic compounds; NOx – nitrogen oxides,
PM10 – particulate matter smaller than 10 microns, PM2.5 – particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 27
TABLE 12. SELECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY BEST PRACTICES
Sector Source Category Measures
Efficient Cooling Systems
Evaporative cooling – installation, retention, and renewal
of systems
Appliance Recycling Removal of older refrigerators and freezers
Efficient Lighting Mix of compact fluorescent lamp based measures
Clothes washers – mix of Energy Star vertical axis
machines and horizontal axis machines
Residential
Appliance Standards
Appliance standby loss – reduce loss to one watt per
electronic device
Efficient lighting Mix of better technologies
Efficient refrigeration Mix of better technologies
Cooling efficiency – mix of better systems
Efficient cooling systems
Indirect/direct evaporative cooling
Ground Efficient space heating source heat pump
systems Fuel switching from electric to gas
Multi-measure strategies for
existing building stock
Miscellaneous devices (LED traffic lights and signs,
clothes washers, computers, monitors and other office
electronics
Retro-commissioning Operations and maintenance of existing building stock
Water heating Mix of efficiency and fuel switching from electric
Commercial
Transformers Efficiency improvements
Transformers Efficiency improvements
Motors
Premium motors (including replace rather than rewind)
and motor downsizing
Industrial
Motor drive systems System upgrades of fans, air compressors, pumps
Source: Derived from Appendix V of WRAP Air Pollution Prevention Forum, “WRAP Policy - Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency as Pollution
Prevention Strategies for Regional Haze,” April 2003.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 28
Renewable Sources of Energy. The WRAP estimated that six percent of the electricity
needs of the nine-state Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region were met by renewable
sources in 1999; most of this energy was produced in California. The WRAP
recommendations focus on achieving a goal of meeting 10 percent of the region’s power
needs with renewable sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015.
The WRAP concluded that there is considerable potential for generation of renewable
energy in the West, but there are major barriers, the largest of which is cost. With the
exception of wind resources, generation from renewable sources is generally more
expensive than conventional electric technologies. The environmental benefits of
renewable energy are not currently considered adequately in evaluating power generation
costs.
To overcome this barrier, the WRAP recommended that states provide financial incentives
for the production and consumption of renewable energy. In addition, customers who
want to purchase renewable-generated electricity should be given the option of purchasing
part of their power through a subsidized “green pricing program.” To improve the
performance of such a program, states, tribes, and local governments could adopt
complementary policies that lower transaction costs for renewable electricity products and
services.
In 2004, Arizona Public Service (APS) doubled its financial incentives and will now rebate
up to half the cost of solar equipment bought by its customers. On March 24, 2004, APS
broke ground on a unique solar trough generating station that uses energy from the sun to
make steam that turns a turbine generator. These initiatives will help APS meet the
Arizona Corporation Commission's requirement that regulated utilities in the state obtain at
least one percent of their electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind, and
biomass by 2005.[10]
Another innovative renewable energy program is Nevada GreenPower, which encourages
residents and businesses to make tax deductible donations to help subsidize generation of
power from renewable sources. Those interested in supporting renewable energy can sign
up with their power company to add a few extra dollars to their monthly electricity bill.
The program is a joint venture of Nevada Power, Sierra Pacific, and the Desert Research
Institute Foundation. The donations are used to fund solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass
power generation projects and educational programs in Southern Nevada. In 2002,
GreenPower installed solar and wind electricity-generation systems at Hyde Park Middle
School in Las Vegas. Twelve solar panels and a wind turbine with a 4-foot wing span
were mounted on the roof of the school. The power produced by these sources is saving
the school about $500 a year in energy costs. GreenPower also sponsored renewable
energy training for science teachers at Hyde Park Middle School and they have
subsequently modified their lesson plans to include more emphasis on natural resources,
energy conservation and alternative energy sources. The students are also given an
opportunity to collect and analyze data produced by the solar array. The equipment used
in the Hyde Park project was installed by Las Vegas Solar Electric which donated a
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 29
significant part of the costs as a learning experience to fine-tune the process for future
GreenPower sites.
The WRAP concluded that tribal lands in the West have great potential for the
development and delivery of electricity generated from renewable resources. Many tribes
are interested in producing, selling, and using such power. However, additional barriers
exist for many tribes, including lack of an energy authority or policy; local demand for
basic, reliable electric service; and limited capital to finance expensive power generation
facilities. [7]
Implementation Mechanism: This strategy involves implementing a public information
program and incentives to encourage more efficient use of petroleum products, and, where
feasible, substitution of renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power. Since
Coconino County has an abundance of annual sunshine (an average of 264 days per year
are either clear or partly cloudy), solar-powered options should be fully explored via
research and demonstration projects. Individuals might be encouraged to use solar energy
in their homes and businesses if they were shown they can realize monetary savings (i.e.,
tax incentives, lower annual energy costs).
Municipal and county codes should be examined to determine if there are current
impediments to—or opportunities for—conserving energy or substituting renewable power.
To be most effective, there should be research, outreach, and financial incentive
components to this program. The program might be most effectively coordinated and
implemented as a joint venture involving Northern Arizona University, energy providers,
Indian communities, and local governments in Coconino County.
Municipal policies could be developed by local governments and tribes in Coconino
County to provide financial incentives for generating, selling, and using electricity from
“green” sources. Table 12 provides some guidance on local policies that might be
formulated to promote energy efficiency. Local governments should also coordinate with
the Indian communities in Coconino County to develop complementary policies on energy
efficiency and renewable sources. Local governments and citizen groups should also be
encouraged to write letters in support of Federal and state policies and regulations
embodied in the WRAP’s recommendations.
In addition, the Coconino County “Air Aware” Program to be implemented as part of the
education and outreach component of the Clean Air Action Plan should educate consumers,
businesses, and students on how to reduce consumption of electricity, and encourage use of
power from renewable sources (i.e., solar or wind). Via ”Air Aware,” Coconino County
can also communicate the importance of reducing dependency on petroleum products used
in automobiles (i.e. driving cars with high fuel economy).
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: The WRAP forecasted that the recommended energy
efficiency and renewable energy measures will reduce nitrogen oxides by 1-2 percent and
carbon dioxide by 10-14 percent by 2018 in the nine-state Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Region. Reductions in particulate matter and sulfur oxides were estimated to be
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 30
negligible. These estimates are based on reductions in emissions from power plants fueled
with non-renewable resources.
Costs of Implementation: The WRAP estimated that the renewable energy measures in the
Region would cost $300 to $900 million by 2018, while the energy efficiency efforts would
reduce costs by $1 billion. The net benefit would be between $100 and $700 million.
The cost of implementing policies in Coconino County to support the WRAP
recommendations is estimated to be about $75,000 per year, which represents the cost of
hiring a policy analyst to evaluate WRAP recommendations and other potential measures,
develop local government policies, oversee their adoption, and monitor their
implementation. The additional cost of implementing the "Air Aware" campaign, which
would include the promotion of energy efficiency and renewable sources, is discussed
below.
2. Conduct Education/Outreach Program to Sustain Clean Air
This strategy received the second-highest number of votes from participants in the
Coconino County visioning session. It would involve a comprehensive “Air Aware”
campaign which would address measures that individuals, employers and students can take
to reduce air pollution. The campaign would promote alternative transportation modes,
including carpooling, vanpooling, riding the bus, bicycling and walking; compressed work
schedules and telecommuting; alternatives to wood burning in the winter; and refueling
vehicles after dark in the summer. Businesses could be encouraged to meet trip reduction
targets. During the winter, the campaign would educate homeowners on reducing
emissions from wood smoke and discourage use of wood burning during temperature
inversions and bad visibility days. The campaign could also arrange for dust control
training (to be offered by the Arizona Department of Transportation) for construction,
demolition, hauling and landscaping workers and managers.
“Air Aware” should be a multi-media campaign, utilizing one or more of the following:
web page, television, radio, newspaper, bus advertisements. Businesses could be targeted
through direct mail, management-level briefings and/or advertising in business
publications. Information could be provided to residents at community events. The
campaign could also promote energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy.
Brochures could be provided to employers to distribute to their employees and to utility
companies to distribute to their customers. Lesson plans could be distributed to primary
and secondary schools and educational events hosted on local campuses. A special effort
should be made to disseminate information to NAU students and faculty.
Implementation Mechanism: The agency that assumes the leadership role in implementing
the Clean Air Action Plan (Coconino County, NACOG or FMPO) would also be
responsible for conducting the “Air Aware” education and outreach program. The lead
agency would obtain co-sponsors (Chambers of Commerce, cities and towns, Indian
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 31
communities, environmental groups, utilities, and renewable energy companies) to provide
in-kind resources and promote the campaign.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This campaign will reduce pollutants emitted by power
plants, light duty vehicles, and wood burning sources. These pollutants include carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and particulate
matter (both PM10 and PM2.5). Based on the FY 2003 Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Annual Report for Maricopa County, it is estimated that
the “Air Aware” campaign in Coconino County would reduce CO emissions by 51
tons/year, VOCs by 7 tons/year, and PM10 by 11 tons/year. The emission reductions for
Coconino County were derived by applying 3.75 percent to the Maricopa County emission
reduction estimates for air quality education and outreach programs in the CMAQ report.
This is the ratio of the population of Coconino County to the population of Maricopa
County, as reported in the 2000 Census.
Costs of Implementation: A year-round “Air Aware” campaign for Coconino County
would cost an estimated $75,000 per annum. This includes a part-time campaign
coordinator, as well as costs of materials and advertising. For comparison purposes,
Valley Metro in Maricopa County spent about $2.15 million in FY 2003 on air quality
education and outreach programs, including the ozone education program, telework
outreach program, and trip reduction program.
3. Encourage Alternatives to Single Occupant Vehicle Travel
This strategy supports new programs and capital and operating expenditures for bus system
improvements, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, regional ridesharing programs, and park
and ride lots. The objective of these programs and expenditures is to increase the
attractiveness and level of service of these alternative modes, so that the public will reduce
their single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel.
Implementation Mechanism: Local governments in Coconino County would be
responsible for planning and implementing transportation programs and improvements that
improve the competitiveness of alternative modes. The lead agency for the Clean Air
Action Plan would be responsible for regional programs, such as ridesharing, and would
ensure that interfaces among alternative modes are coordinated throughout the County.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This strategy will reduce pollutants emitted by light duty
vehicles. These pollutants include carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen
oxides, and particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5). Based on the FY 2003 CMAQ
Annual Report for Maricopa County, it is estimated that the regional rideshare program in
Coconino County would reduce CO emissions by 57 tons/year, VOCs by 8 metric
tons/year, and PM10 by 12 tons/year. The emission reductions for Coconino County were
derived by applying 3.75 percent to the Maricopa County emission reduction estimates for
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 32
the regional rideshare program in the CMAQ report. This is the ratio of the population of
Coconino County to the population of Maricopa County, as reported in the 2000 Census.
Costs of Implementation: A regional ridesharing program for Coconino County would
cost an estimated $50,000 per year. This includes a part-time program coordinator, as
well as costs of materials and advertising. For comparison purposes, Maricopa County
spent about $660,000 in FY 2003 on the regional ridesharing program. Costs to improve
the infrastructure or service of alternative modes could quickly escalate this cost into the
millions of dollars.
4. Dust Control Plans with Mitigation Bond Requirements
The objective of a dust control plan is to minimize emissions from construction and
earthmoving activities. This strategy requires land-clearing and construction operators to
develop a plan to control dust before, during, and after the dust-generating activities occur.
The dust control plan would have to be approved by a government entity before the
operator can proceed with grading and drainage work.
Activities of this type are temporary yet important sources of PM10 pollution in urban
areas. The activities requiring dust control on the work site include drilling and blasting,
excavation, cut-and-fill, material storage and handling, and vehicles traveling on unpaved
surfaces. In addition, mud and dirt tracked out onto paved public roadways can be a major
source of PM10.
A typical dust control plan for a work site would identify the potential sources of dust, the
location of delivery, transport, and storage areas, the types of material to be stored, and
the size of piles. In addition, the plan would describe measures to be applied at the site
during periods of dust generation, including the frequency and duration of watering or
other suppressant application. The plan would also address control of material track-out
where unpaved access points join paved surfaces and handling of loads during transport to
and from the work site (i.e., all truck loads covered with no less than 3 inches of
freeboard).
The dust control plan could include a variety of work practices such as frequent watering
of disturbed surfaces and storage piles and use of wind fences for control of windblown
dust. Other site-specific prevention and mitigation measures could include paving of roads
and access points early in the project, compaction or stabilization (chemical or vegetative)
of disturbed soil, phasing of earthmoving activities, reduction of mud and dirt tracked onto
paved streets, installation of truck wash or devices to remove dirt from vehicles and tires
prior to exiting the site, and periodic cleaning of the street near work site entrances.
Under the mitigation bond requirement, a company seeking a grading and drainage permit
would provide a letter of credit or surety bond to cover the cost of mitigation measures
contained in the dust control plan. The full amount posted plus interest would be refunded
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 33
at the completion of the project, if the company followed the dust control plan and the
municipality incurred no costs in controlling dust at the project site. Mitigation bond
requirements have been implemented in Clark County, Nevada, and Rancho Mirage,
California. Typical surety bonds posted in Clark County are in the $500-$20,000 range,
depending upon the size of the construction project.
Implementation Mechanism: Arizona law provides local governments with the authority to
suppress environmental nuisances. Under this authority, the cities and towns in Coconino
County could adopt ordinances to require dust control plans in order to avert public
nuisances. Building inspectors could inspect construction sites to ensure that the dust
control plan is being implemented. Enforcement personnel would have to be hired to
respond to complaints. Due to the potential increase in resources required to implement
and enforce this ordinance, the requirement for a dust control plan and mitigation bond
might be most appropriately applied to large construction projects (i.e., greater than 50
acres) in Coconino County. Fees (per acre) are typically charged to cover the costs of
administration and enforcement.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This strategy will reduce particulate matter (PM10)
produced by disturbing soils during construction and earthmoving activities. Based on
Sierra Research estimates, the PM10 reductions associated with watering a 50 acre
residential construction site in accordance with a Dust Control Plan would be 27 tons over
the six-month life of the project, a 61 percent reduction in PM10 emissions. [11]
Costs of Implementation: Sierra Research also estimates that the contractor’s cost to water
a 50-acre site adequately for six months would be about $54,000. Costs of the permits and
mitigation bonds would depend upon fees and rates set by the implementing jurisdiction.
The administrative cost to develop a dust control ordinance with a mitigation bond
requirement would be about $15,000. At least one full time staff person would be required
to review the dust control plans, conduct periodic inspections of 50 acre or larger projects,
and respond to citizen complaints. Employment of this additional staff person would cost
about $60,000.
5. Clean Burning Fireplaces in New Construction
This strategy reduces emissions from new residential and commercial fireplaces and wood
stoves. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has estimated that wood
burning may cause up to 40 percent of the pollution in neighborhoods during winter
temperature inversions.
Flagstaff already has an ordinance (No. 1664, June 5, 1990) that prohibits the sale or
installation of wood heaters or fireplace insets that do not meet Phase II EPA Standards.
The existing ordinance requires that a permit be obtained before installing a wood burning
heater or fireplace. It also outlaws the burning of coal within the city limits.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 34
A clean burning fireplace ordinance would go further, prohibiting the installation or
construction of a fireplace or wood stove, unless it is one of the following:
• A fireplace that has a permanently installed gas or electric log insert,
• A fireplace or wood stove or any other solid fuel burning appliance that is certified
as conforming to Phase II EPA Standards of Performance for Wood Heaters in 40
CFR Part 60, Subpart AAA, as amended through July 1, 1998, or
• A fireplace that has a permanently installed wood stove insert that complies with
Phase II EPA standards.
The ordinance would prohibit the subsequent conversion or alteration of an approved
fireplace or wood stove to an unapproved use. The ordinance typically provides
exemptions for home heating, industrial equipment, cooking devices, and outdoor
fireplaces.
The advantage of this air quality improvement strategy is that it helps to offset the increase
in emissions due to population growth. In the Phoenix area, Maricopa County and all local
jurisdictions within it were required by the Arizona Legislature (S.B. 1427) to adopt,
implement, and enforce clean burning fireplace ordinances by December 31, 1998.
Implementation Mechanism: Local governments in Coconino County have the authority to
adopt ordinances governing construction and installation of woodstoves and fireplaces.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This strategy will reduce particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5) and NOx emitted in wood smoke. Certified woodstove efficiency is estimated to be
68 percent. Emission reductions from certified wood burning devices would be 0.16 lbs of
PM10 per new residence per heating day, 0.13 lbs of PM2.5 per new residence per heating
day and 0.01 lbs of NOx per new residence per heating day.
Costs of Implementation: The administrative cost to develop a clean burning fireplace
ordinance would be about $10,000. The cost to the consumer could vary from $100-$500,
depending upon the certified woodstove or fireplace product installed. However, operating
efficiencies and reduced fuel costs may result in overall customer savings, as well as air
quality improvements.
6. Episode Curtailment Program for Wood Smoke
This strategy restricts the use of wood stoves and fireplaces during episodes when
monitored concentrations of air pollutants exceed predetermined thresholds. Unless
additional monitors are activated, a wood smoke curtailment program in Coconino County
would be based upon PM10 concentrations at the Flagstaff monitors or degraded visibility
readings at the Grand Canyon monitor. When one of these monitors reached certain
threshold levels and other environmental conditions such as calm winds were evident, a no-
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 35
burn alert would be announced. Alerts would be communicated to the public through the
broadcast media (radio, TV) and to employers via fax notification.
Maricopa County adopted an ordinance establishing a residential wood burning restriction
program in 1994. The annual period during which restrictions on burning can be called is
October 1 through February 29. The County Air Pollution Control Officer can call a
restricted burn period on the basis of an assessment of meteorological data, atmospheric
conditions, ambient temperatures, and monitored carbon monoxide or PM10 concentrations.
When a restriction is called, all fireplaces and wood heating devices must be shut down
within three hours. Exemptions include those that are the sole source of heat in a
residence and those that qualify as an approved wood burning device (i.e. gas logs, EPA
Phase II certified wood heaters, pellet stoves, and masonry heaters). Wood-fired
barbeques and commercial cooking devices are also exempt. Any person who violates this
ordinance within a 1-year period, after being issued a warning notice, is guilty of a civil
offense and subject to a $100 fine. In addition to Maricopa County, this strategy has been
implemented in Missoula, Montana; Mammoth Lakes, California; and Clark and Washoe
counties in Nevada.
Implementation Mechanism: Jurisdictions in Coconino County have the authority to adopt
ordinances establishing a wood smoke curtailment program and setting criteria for no-burn
advisories. The local governments would need to work cooperatively with the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to set up a real-time forecasting system
using meteorology and the PM10 and visibility monitoring data available for Coconino
County. The ADEQ can assist in determining whether additional monitors (i.e. carbon
monoxide) would be needed to augment the forecasting system.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: Assuming 15 curtailment days per year, this strategy
would reduce PM10 by 165 lbs per wood heated residence, PM2.5 by 135 lbs per wood
heated residence, and NOx by 15 lbs per wood heated residence.
Costs of Implementation: The administrative cost to develop a wood smoke curtailment
ordinance would be about $15,000. The administrative cost to set up and maintain a real-time
monitoring system, publicize high pollution advisories, and enforce no-burn
restrictions could cost as much as $70,000 per year.
7. Innovative Land Use Planning to Encourage Multi-Modal Opportunities
This strategy would promote land use plans and policies that will increase the use of modes
other than the single occupant vehicle. The urban growth boundary implemented in
Flagstaff will have the eventual effect of increasing both residential and employment
densities, which, in turn, will promote the use of alternative modes. Limited parking
exists in downtown Flagstaff; rather than providing more parking, the fees for the existing
spaces could be increased. These measures are also typical of land use policies that
encourage transit-oriented development.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 36
Like many university towns, Flagstaff has taken the initiative to develop an extensive
network of bike paths, the Flagstaff Urban Trail System, to encourage bicycling in lieu of
driving. Similarly, land use planning that creates convenient access for pedestrians will
increase walking, improve public health, and reduce vehicle trips. Other design techniques
such as traffic calming, roundabouts, and auto-free zones have been applied elsewhere in
the country to discourage vehicular traffic. Although these planning and design
innovations are important in increasing the attractiveness of alternative modes, another
element in their success has been the parallel, and often major, investment in improved
service and infrastructure for alternative modes such as late night and weekend bus service,
coordinated networks of bicycle and pedestrian paths, and pedestrian-friendly street
redesign.
This strategy would be implemented as part of the comprehensive planning processes at all
levels of government in Coconino County. In order to be effective in reducing SOV
travel, policies that promote increased residential and commercial densities, restrict
parking supply, and impose higher parking fees need to be paired with increased capital
investments in transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities. Because public funding is limited
especially at this time, financing for these capital investments may require considerable
political will. Strong public support will also be needed to increase parking rates as this
action, although effective in encouraging use of alternative modes, has proven to be
politically unacceptable in many parts of the country.
Implementation Mechanism: Local governments in Coconino County have the authority to
prepare land use and zoning plans that incorporate one or more innovative planning and
design features. The Growing Smarter legislation requires governments to update their
general plans on a periodic basis. Innovative land uses that encourage higher density
developments and use of alternative transportation modes can be integrated into the next
general plan update.
A potential source of funding for innovative land use planning to support transportation
and environmental goals is federal grants. There is considerable interest at the federal
level in funding projects that demonstrate the impacts of land use planning on
transportation and air quality. These impacts are intuitively suspected, but have not been
quantified to any great extent. Local governments might consider teaming with Northern
Arizona University to apply for a grant from EPA or U.S. DOT to show how innovative
land use policies can result in increased use of alternative transportation modes.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: If innovative land use planning reduces vehicle travel in
Coconino County by one percent in 2015, the reduction in vehicle emissions would be
about 676 kg/day for carbon monoxide, 38 kg/day for nitrogen oxides, 35 kg/day for
volatile organic compounds, and 38 kg/day for particulate matter (PM10). Reducing VMT
will also decrease greenhouse gases, gasoline consumption, and the County's reliance on
fossil fuels.
Costs of Implementation: There would be negligible cost to incorporate multi-modal land
use planning and design concepts into the required general plan updates. However, there
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 37
could be considerable costs associated with capital investments in infrastructure and
services to improve the attractiveness of alternative modes.
8. Integrate Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality Decision-Making
This strategy would involve a review of development and transportation plans, programs,
and policies at all levels of government in Coconino County to determine if land use,
transportation and the environment, including air quality, are adequately coordinated.
Typically, long-range plans include land use, transportation, and environmental goals and
objectives. However, these may not be translated into integrated programs and policies.
Day-to-day decisions of local government officials may not reflect the same level of
integration as is contained in these plans. If not, then better coordination needs to take
place within agencies. This is complicated by the fact that land use, transportation, and
environmental issues are typically handled by different departments and reviewing work of
other departments may not be the highest priority.
To ensure that land use, transportation and air quality decisions are integrated across
Coconino County, coordination also needs to take place at all levels of government. For
example, County staff should be familiar with the plans, programs, policies, and decisions
being made by the City of Flagstaff and the Flagstaff MPO, and vice versa. Coordination
with other large land owners and policy-makers, such as the Indian tribes, state, and
federal government, is also important.
To make informed decisions, elected officials and municipal/county managers need to
obtain staff recommendations that reflect an understanding of the land use, transportation
and environmental implications of proposed actions. One way to ensure that coordination
has occurred is to require a formal review of major proposals by appropriate departments
within the agency. Another approach would be to assign a staff person as an integrator;
that is, someone who understands the issues and impacts of proposed actions across all
functions. As an initial step, decision-makers could direct their staffs to consider the land
use, transportation and environmental implications of each proposed action and point out
significant problems or discontinuities with internal programs and policies or those at other
levels of government. The Arizona Department of Transportation is currently conducting
a land use, transportation, and air quality integration study. When completed, this study
may be useful in providing guidelines for more integrated policies and decision-making
throughout Arizona.
Implementation Mechanism: Elected and appointed local government leaders in Coconino
County have the authority to internally reorganize and reprioritize to ensure that the
integration of land use, transportation, and air quality policies and decisions takes place.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: If improved integration in land use, transportation, and
air quality decision-making reduces vehicle travel in Coconino County by one percent in
2015, the reduction in vehicle emissions would be about 676 kg/day for carbon monoxide,
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 38
38 kg/day for nitrogen oxides, 35 kg/day for volatile organic compounds, and 38 kg/day
for particulate matter (PM10). Reducing VMT will also decrease greenhouse gases,
gasoline consumption, and the County's reliance on fossil fuels.
Costs of Implementation: There would be minimal cost to reorganize or reprioritize to
emphasize integration, rather than compartmentalization, in local government agencies.
9. Stabilize Surface or Reduce Speeds on Unpaved Roads
This strategy involves actions to mitigate the dust and PM10 pollution generated by vehicles
traveling on dirt roads in Coconino County. Potential measures include paving, covering
the surface with gravel, chemical stabilization, watering, or reducing speeds of vehicle
traffic. Speeds could be reduced by posting lower speed limits or building speed bumps.
The cities, towns, and County could implement these measures on public unpaved roads
under their jurisdiction. Since there are a large number of unpaved roads in Coconino
County, controlling dust on all of them would not be practical. Given the large size of the
County and the limited resources available, it might be appropriate to target the unpaved
roads with the highest average daily traffic (ADT) or those closest to the Grand Canyon or
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area first. In Maricopa County, public dirt roads that carry
more than 150 ADT must be stabilized by June 10, 2004.
Implementation Mechanism: Stabilization of public unpaved roads or a reduction in speeds
on those roads could be undertaken by the local governments in Coconino County that
currently maintain these facilities. The legislature has authorized local governments to
lower speeds on public dirt roads if doing so will reduce air pollution.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This strategy reduces PM10 emissions from vehicles
traveling on dirt roads. Sierra Research has recently reported that reducing average speeds
from 25.9 to 25.0 miles per hour on dirt roads in San Joaquin Valley with an annual
average daily traffic count (ADT) of 15 vehicles per day reduces PM10 emissions by 29.9
pounds per day per centerline mile or 5.45 tons per year. Sierra also estimated that the
reduction in PM10 emissions due to paving a dirt road having 20 to 65 ADT per day would
be 7.45 to 20.45 tons per year per centerline mile.[11]
Costs of Implementation: Sierra Research has also estimated that it will cost $400 per
centerline mile of dirt road to install one speed limit sign in each direction. The average
cost of paving a road in San Joaquin Valley is $400,000 per mile, including roadway
excavation, aggregate base, striping, and traffic control.
10. Retrofit Municipal Diesel Vehicles and Equipment
Although this strategy only received three votes from the visioning group (versus the four
or more votes received by each of the others), it was added to the list of top ten preferred
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 39
strategies because it is the only one that mitigates the impact of diesel emissions on public
health and visibility. In 2001, EPA mandated stricter standards for heavy duty diesel
vehicles that will begin phasing in with model year 2007. The catalytic converters that
will be installed in the cleaner diesel vehicles are quickly rendered inoperative by the high
sulfur content of the diesel fuel currently sold in America (except California). To address
this problem, EPA is also requiring that low sulfur diesel fuel be sold nationwide by mid-
2006. In May 2003, EPA also proposed stricter standards for diesel equipment that
operates off-road, such as that used for construction and agricultural purposes, which may
begin to phase-in as early as 2007.
These new federal standards will reduce emissions from new diesel vehicles and engines.
However, due to the longevity of this equipment and its high cost, it will be many years
before older “dirty” vehicles are retired and diesel fleets are entirely “clean”. In the
meantime, local governments are taking actions to accelerate the conversion to cleaner
diesel fuels and reduce diesel tailpipe emissions. For example, in 2002 the State of
Arizona inaugurated a Diesel Conversion Grant Program that provides up to $30,000 of
the cost of converting a diesel vehicle over 19,500 pounds GVW to alternative fuels. To
qualify for the grant, the vehicle must travel 50 percent or more of the time in the Phoenix
or Tucson metropolitan areas. Alternative fuels are defined as compressed natural gas
(CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, electric, solar, or hydrogen.
The Environmental Protection Agency is promoting a number of new initiatives as part of
its Diesel Emission Reduction Program. EPA is encouraging public/private partnerships to
reduce idling and retrofit or replace older engines of diesel vehicles. One such initiative is
Clean School Bus USA, which has established a goal of modernizing the entire public
school bus fleet by 2010. See www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus. Under this program, EPA is
providing grants to school districts for demonstration projects. Paradise Valley School
District in Maricopa County was awarded a grant in FY 2004 to use ultra low sulfur (15
ppm) diesel fuel in their school buses and install particulate traps on 20 buses. Federal
funding for Clean School Bus USA was $5 million in FY 2003 and FY 2004, but may
increase to as much as $65 million in FY 2005. In addition, as part of a federal settlement
with Toyota, an additional $20 million will become available in the spring of 2004. School
districts and others interested in diesel emission reduction programs may be eligible for
funds from this settlement.
Retrofitting municipal diesel vehicles and equipment to reduce emissions in Coconino
County could take many forms, including conversion to alternative fuels (i.e., biodiesel),
installation of oxidation catalysts and particulate filters, and application of idling reduction
technology (i.e., electrification kits). Professor William Auberle of Northern Arizona
University received a grant from EPA in 2001 to conduct workshops on technologies that
are available to reduce vehicle idling at truck stops and other locations. He would be an
excellent resource for additional information on diesel technologies that could be applied to
municipal vehicles and equipment.
It is envisioned that these retrofit technologies could be applied to garbage trucks, street
sweepers, school buses, or off-road diesel equipment (i.e., construction) owned by city or
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 40
county governments. The cities of Mesa and Tempe are jointly planning to retrofit 45
municipal vehicles with oxidation catalysts and particulate filters and run them on low
sulfur diesel fuel. The estimated cost of this FY 2007 demonstration project will be
$350,000.
The City of Flagstaff has issued a request for bids to supply the City’s vehicle fleet with
biodiesel. The product will be used in over 100 city vehicles including fire trucks, refuse
trucks, and roadway maintenance vehicles.
Other local governments in Coconino County could team with Northern Arizona
University to request a grant from EPA to conduct a demonstration project to retrofit
municipal diesel vehicles and equipment. Although ultra low sulfur diesel fuel will be
available in mid-2006 and stricter federal standards for new model diesel vehicles will
begin in 2007, older diesel engines will still be emitting high levels of pollution for many
years. (Diesel engines typically last 20-35 years). To reduce emissions from these older
engines, local governments need to institute programs to reduce idling and retrofit or
replace older diesel vehicles and equipment. Diesel exhaust emissions contribute to the
degradation of visibility and may even be carcinogenic. It is especially troubling that
children are being exposed to toxic fumes when they ride diesel buses to school.
Implementation Mechanism: Local governments in Coconino County have the authority to
retrofit municipal diesel vehicles, such as garbage trucks, street sweepers, school buses
and off-road equipment, to reduce air pollution. They can also conduct voluntary
programs that encourage reductions in idling of diesel vehicles and equipment.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This strategy reduces carbon monoxide, volatile organic
compounds, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) that are emitted
by diesel trucks and equipment. In the case of the 45 municipal diesel vehicles that are to
be retrofitted with 3-way catalysts and particulate traps by Mesa and Tempe in FY 2007,
the estimated emission reductions are 12.8 kg/day for CO, 1.3 kg/day for VOCs, 27.4
kg/day for NOx, and 1.0 kg/day for PM10.
Costs of Implementation: The cost to implement the pilot retrofit program for the 45
Mesa/Tempe municipal vehicles is estimated to be $350,000. Funding for diesel emission
reduction programs in Coconino County is potentially available from EPA and the
imminent Toyota settlement. The Mobile Sources Forum of the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) may also have $40-70K available in FY 2005 to fund diesel retrofit
projects. Since improving visibility in the Grand Canyon (and other 15 Colorado Plateau
Class I areas) is a primary goal of the WRAP, Coconino County should be a competitive
candidate for these funds. The Air Quality Steering Committee could take the lead in
identifying worthy diesel retrofit projects and applying for WRAP funding, EPA grants,
and a portion of the Toyota settlement.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 41
CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN
Table 13 summarizes the tasks that need to be implemented to achieve the desired
improvements in Coconino County air quality. The first step in implementing the Clean
Air Action Plan will be to set up an Air Quality Steering Committee. It is envisioned that
the Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG), the FMPO, or Coconino
County would assume a leadership role in implementing the Clean Air Action Plan, since
air quality is a regional issue that transcends city and town boundaries. The agency
selected to play the lead role in implementing the Plan will also be responsible for
identifying specific resource requirements and funding sources for each task.
The third task in Table 13, the strategy receiving the second-highest number of votes
during the visioning process, is the air quality education and outreach program. A
website, fact sheets, and other collateral materials are being provided as part of this ADOT
contract to “jump-start” this Plan. Early implementation of this task should create the
momentum, enthusiasm, and support necessary to fund and implement the remainder of the
Plan.
Conclusion
The residents of Coconino County desire to improve their air quality. Specifically, they
want to reduce air pollutants that are unhealthy to breathe, impair visibility, and contribute
to global warming. Through a visioning process, local stakeholders have identified the
issues of greatest concern, contributed to a vision statement, and prioritized potential air
quality improvement strategies. A Clean Air Action Plan has been developed to ensure
that the “vision” becomes a reality. Air quality can be improved and the quality of life can
be sustained in Coconino County through a coordinated regional effort with a clear
“vision” and the direction provided by the Clean Air Action Plan.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 42
TABLE 13. CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN FOR COCONINO COUNTY
Task Responsibility
Time
Frame
1. Set up Air Quality Steering
Committee
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead; Committee membership – elected,
staff, and ADOT
1-3 months
2. Encourage Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Sources of
Energy
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead w/input from Air Quality Steering
Committee
1 year
3. Conduct Education/Outreach
Program to Sustain Clean Air
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead w/input from Air Quality Steering
Committee
3-6 months
4. Encourage Alternatives to
Single Occupant Vehicle
Travel
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead w/input from Air Quality Steering
Committee
1 year
5. Dust Control Plans with
Mitigation Bond
Requirements
Local Governments 1-3 years
6. Clean Burning Fireplaces in
New Construction
Local Governments 1-3 years
7. Episode Curtailment Program
for Wood Smoke
Local Governments 1-3 years
8. Innovative Land Use
Planning to Encourage Multi-
Modal Opportunities
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead w/input from Air Quality Steering
Committee
1-3 years
9. Integrate Land Use,
Transportation and Air
Quality Decision-Making
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead w/input from Air Quality Steering
Committee
1-3 years
10. Stabilize or Reduce Speeds
on Unpaved Roads
Local Governments 1-3 years
11. Retrofit Municipal Diesel
Vehicles and Equipment
Local Governments 1-3 years
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 43
5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OUTREACH PROGRAM
This chapter presents candidate elements for the educational outreach program and
recommends elements for selection in implementing the program. The first portion of the
chapter presents the goals, theme, target audiences, and potential program sponsors.
In February 2001, this Project Team completed the development of a similar
implementation program for an Air Quality Outreach Program for Central Yavapai
County.[12] Program elements were developed with input from that project’s technical
advisory committee as well as a Steering Committee comprised of area stakeholders. The
second part of the chapter identifies recommended outreach techniques for implementation
in Coconino County.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE PROGRAM
The overall goal of the outreach program is summarized by the Vision Statement presented
in Chapter 3. As mentioned in Chapter 3, “Development and implementation of an
Education/Outreach Program” is one of the action items recommended for adoption in
support of the Vision Statement.
THEME OF THE OUTREACH PROGRAM
As a first step in developing the Outreach Program, a graphical representation was
developed together with the Steering Committee. A logo was developed incorporating:
• Geography, nature, and landscape of Coconino County
• Characteristics of the environment
• Focus on preserving and improving air quality
• Appealing slogan
• Kinship with other air quality outreach programs sponsored by the Arizona
Department of Transportation
Figure 6 introduces a proposed logo for the outreach effort. The graphic identifies the
jurisdictions spearheading the effort without restricting the geographical extent to particular
jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, the logo stylizes the familiar profile of the San
Francisco Peaks north of Flagstaff. Through the chosen slogan of AIR AWARE, focus is
directed to the need to improve air quality in the County. The choice of AIR AWARE,
which has been adopted by Central Yavapai County in a similar effort and is used on the
ADOT Air Quality Web site, links the new Coconino program to the growing success and
acceptance of these previously conducted efforts.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 44
FIGURE 6. PROPOSED LOGO FOR THE AIR AWARE OUTREACH EFFORT
Source: Lima & Associates
TARGET AUDIENCES
Air quality affects everyone, and local residents and visitors alike will benefit from
sustained air quality or suffer from increased air pollution. Therefore, the Outreach
Program should target the general public, and special attention should be paid to ensure
that all segments of the population are reached. Moreover, it is important that outreach
activities strive to provide information in regard to the most effective strategies for
improving air quality. Table 14 lists the air quality improvement strategies identified
during the Visioning Session. Each strategy is paired with the potential target group
affected by the strategy. Additionally, possible mechanisms for reaching the specific
groups are identified.
Based on the control strategies, several segments of the population have been identified as
being essential to the effectiveness of the Outreach Program. A database should be
developed to manage this information. As the Outreach Program evolves, the database
could be used to facilitate mailings and specifically indicate interested groups and
individuals.
Stakeholder Database
A database application should be developed to track contacts in the identified target groups
and other potentially interested stakeholders in the process. Figure 7 presents a possible
form layout for such an application.
COCONINO AREA GOVERNMENTS
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 45
TABLE 14. MATRIX OF STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING AIR QUALITY IN COCONINO COUNTY
Strategy
Possible
Measure What’s Already Being Done Target Groups Outreach Measures
Encourage energy
efficiency and renewable
sources of energy
Municipal
policy
• Greater Flagstaff Economic Council
Renewable Energy Fair, August
2003
• Green building code
• Arizona Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
• General public
• Construction industry
• Public agencies
• Chambers of
commerce
• Newsletter
• Public service announcements
• Information materials for
booths
Educational and Outreach
Program to sustain clean
air
Voluntary
program
• Arizona Public Service company
policies
• Arizona Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
• General public
• Schools
• Fact sheets
• Public service announcements
• Educational programs
Alternatives to SOV travel Municipal
program
• Mountain Line and VanGo transit
and paratransit services in the
Flagstaff area
• Pedestrian and bicycle lane
construction guide
• Transportation Demand Management
program
• General public
• Motor vehicle
operators
• Employers
• Public agencies
• Winter ski industry
• Deep discount passes
• Educational materials
• Bike and pedestrian trails map
• Information on forming
carpools and vanpools
Fugitive dust control plans
with mitigation bond
requirements
Ordinance • Including county-wide road paving in
Capital Improvement Program – as
fiscally feasible
• All-terrain vehicle restrictions
• Construction industry
• Small timber logging
• Building inspectors
• Provide informational materials
through permitting process and
on a local website
Clean burning fireplaces in
new construction
Ordinance • City of Flagstaff restricts sale of non-
EPA certified devices
• General public
• Contractors
• Homeowners with
wood-burning
fireplaces
• News media
• Provide information material
through the permitting process
and on a local website
Episode Curtailment
Program for wood smoke
Municipal
program
• Air curtain destructors available for
$200,000 each can contain smoke
from controlled burning
• ADEQ open-burning rule
• Individuals and
agencies Involved in
open burning
• Public service announcements
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 46
TABLE 14. MATRIX OF CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINING AIR QUALITY IN COCONINO COUNTY
(Continued)
Strategy
Possible
Approach What’s Already Being Done Target Groups Outreach Measures
Innovative land use
planning to encourage
multi-modal opportunities
Municipal
plans
Zoning
ordinances
• City of Flagstaff has
established urban growth
boundary; design review
guidelines
• County Comprehensive Plan,
encouraging higher densities,
is pending Board approval
• Transit-oriented design in the
Regional Transportation Plan
• Elected officials
• Municipal planning
agencies
• Internal directives from top
management
• Intergovernmental coordination and
cooperation
Integrate land use,
transportation, and air
quality decision-making
Municipal
policy
• Transit-oriented design in the
Regional Transportation Plan
• State Legislature
(eliminate wildcat
subdivisions)
• Elected officials
• Municipal agencies
• Internal directives from top
management
• Intergovernmental coordination and
cooperation
Stabilize unpaved roads
Reduce speeds on unpaved
roads
Municipal
program
• “No Dust Area” signs posted
• County CIP Promotes
Improvement Districts
• Flagstaff has a paving
program; all dirt roads to be
paved as resources permit
• Neighborhood speed watches
• Elected officials
• Municipal agencies
• Neighborhoods
• Intergovernmental coordination and
cooperation
• Public service announcements
Retrofit Municipal diesel
vehicles
Municipal
program
��� City of Flagstaff is using
biodiesel in 100 municipal
vehicles
• Coconino County is evaluating
the Flagstaff program
• Municipal agencies • Publish success stories (Flagstaff
experience) on local website
• Source of information on other efforts
to retrofit diesel vehicles and use
alternative fuels is ictc@gladstein.org
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 47
FIGURE 7. AIR AWARE OUTREACH DATABASE FORM
Source: Lima & Associates
OUTREACH SPONSORS
Based on the database, efforts should be undertaken to identify potential outreach sponsors,
who should be contacted to solicit their participation in the program. There are several
ways in which stakeholders can participate:
• Jurisdictional buy-in, representation of AIR AWARE as a motto in civic functions.
• Jurisdictions and utilities could assist in funding the design and creation of collateral
materials. Such materials can be included in monthly utility billings to residents, or
AIR AWARE announcements can be included in newsletters, which are often
included in such billings. At a minimum, these newsletters could display the AIR
AWARE logo signifying the endorsement and participation of the jurisdiction or
utility.
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 48
• School districts could develop AIR AWARE "units" for classroom use, and begin
by ensuring that faculty members themselves are informed on clean air issues.
Science classes could include segments on solar energy and alternative fuels,
stressing the importance of future clean air to today's youth.
• Chambers of Commerce, service clubs, and other civic organizations could be
asked to participate by assisting with funding, including the logo and information in
their mailings, and/or recruiting volunteers to aid in making presentations to other
groups.
Chambers of Commerce might incorporate the Air Quality Outreach Program into other
Outreach Programs that the Chambers conduct. Other civic organizations and local
jurisdictions should also be encouraged to become sponsors of the Outreach Program.
PROGRAM COMPONENTS
To enable the Outreach Program to effectively target the general public, a series of
measures could be implemented to support the AIR AWARE program. Table 15 lists these
possible mechanisms. Emphasis should be given to materials for community media
including the following:
• Informational and educational fact sheets
• Public service advertisements for newspapers (area newspapers themselves should
be encouraged to become sponsors of the campaign by running such ads, as well as
announcements of AIR AWARE activities, free of charge)
• Public service announcement scripts for radio and television
• Press releases
• Graphical presentations
• Mass mailings
RECOMMENDED OUTREACH TECHNIQUES
This section presents the outreach techniques recommended for this project, including the
use of “portal” links to ADOT’s AIR AWARE Web site, fact sheets, and a slide
presentation.
Air Aware Web Site
Following the recommendations of the Central Yavapai Study, ADOT developed an AIR
AWARE Web site.[13] Over time, the site has been continually revised and expanded, and
contains a section on the Coconino Project including the two previous working papers and
the preliminary recommendations of the Visioning Session. The current home page of the
site is shown in Figure 8. The current Web address for the site is http://tpd.az.gov/air/.
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 49
TABLE 15. POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY OUTREACH COMPONENTS
Potential Component
• Informational fact sheets – problem definition, description of current
activities, key contact persons
• Educational fact sheets– description of air pollutants and strategies
• Scripts for radio and television public service announcements
• Feature articles for newspapers
• Poster boards
• Displays for open houses
• Speakers bureau
• Off-the-shelf videos
• Neighborhood meetings
• Business group meetings
��� Structure for workshops
• Material for public area display
• Structure for telephone hot line
• Content for opinion polls
• Community access television program material
• Suggested briefings with decision makers
• Structure for public panel discussions
• Structure for press briefings
• Collateral material for mailings to target groups
• Syllabi for elementary, middle school, and high school air quality
preservation units and accompanying classroom materials and handouts
• Content for Web site
ADOT personnel have been able to post updates to the site fairly promptly, responding to
one of the principal concerns regarding informational Web sites. However, by its very
nature, the ADOT site will always be statewide in scope. As additional areas and
jurisdictions develop air quality-related outreach efforts involving ADOT affiliation or
sponsorship, the ADOT site will become more complex. The “Coconino AIR AWARE”
effort should consider implementing one or more “portal�� sites of its own that could be
linked directly to Coconino pages on the ADOT site. For simplicity of site maintenance,
program updates should be forwarded to ADOT for uploading to the Coconino pages of
their site. Candidate portals for the Coconino AIR AWARE effort include:
• Coconino County http://co.coconino.az.us/
• City of Flagstaff http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/
• Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/
• Flagstaff, Arizona Online http://www.flagstaff.az.us/
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 50
FIGURE 8. ADOT AIR AWARE WEB SITE HOME PAGE
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, Air Quality Policy
Section
• Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce http://www.flagstaffchamber.org/
• GRAND CANYON Explorer http://www.kaibab.org/home.htm
• City of Williams http://www.ci.williams.az.us/
• City of Page and Lake Powell http://www.page-lakepowell.com/
• Williams–Grand Canyon Chamber of Commerce
http://www.williamschamber.com/
• Navajo Nation http://www.navajo.org/
One concept would be to encourage any or all of these agencies to include the AIR
AWARE logo on their Web site home pages. The AIR AWARE logo would be linked so
that clicking on it would take the user directly to a portal page such as that depicted in
Figure 9. Such a page could be part of the Coconino section of the ADOT site, or could
be an independent site linked to the ADOT site. Ideally, this page could also be reached
directly by entering an easy-to-remember Web address such as
www.coconinoairquality.org or www.coconinoairaware.org.
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 51
FIGURE 9. EXAMPLE WEB PORTAL PAGE
Source: Lima & Associates
The expense of reserving and maintaining such a Web domain name would represent a
small amount of the campaign’s overall budget. This Web address and/or a toll-free air
quality hotline number would be included in all literature published on behalf of the
outreach campaign and would also be imprinted on promotional giveaways such as pens,
T-shirts, and coffee mugs.
Fact Sheets
Fact sheets provide both general information and discussion of specific air quality
strategies. The following fact sheets have been prepared as examples to be used as part of
the educational outreach program.
• Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Sources of Energy
• WoodBurning and Air Quality
• Improving Air Quality in Coconino
County
• Land Use Planning, Transportation,
and Air Quality
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 52
• Alternatives to Single Occupant
Vehicle Travel
• Diesel Vehicles and Equipment
• Controlling Construction Dust
Drafts of these Fact Sheets are contained in Appendix A.
Slide Presentation Script
A draft slide presentation script has been prepared for the Outreach Program and is
included in Appendix B. This presentation has been designed for the general public and
summarizes the visioning process, presents control strategies, and provides suggestions
regarding how the viewer can aid in improving air quality.
EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH
The Project Team identified schools as a key target group for the Outreach Program. In
addition, chambers of commerce in Coconino County could incorporate elements of the
Air Quality Outreach Program into their annual programs of work and assist in obtaining
private sector participation and sponsorship. The chamber in each community could
introduce the program to grade schools, high schools, and community colleges.
Elementary, Middle, and High School Programs
Educational programs could be developed internally through the curricula of local schools
and can also be obtained from commercially available sources. Materials that could be
developed locally include:
• AIR AWARE lesson plans and fact sheets for administrators and teachers
• AIR AWARE educational materials such as posters and workbooks for students
• Coloring books, games, and puzzles for younger students
The EPA Web site has an EPA Student Center at http://www.epa.gov/students/ that
includes an air quality section. Sites linked to the Air Quality page include a “Plain
English Guide to the Clean Air Act”, an environmental atlas, and a site discussing air
quality issues related to National Parks.
Local and regional agencies have also developed educational programs. For example, the
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) has developed “Clean Air Express”, an air
quality resource manual for K-12 teachers that can be downloaded from the PSCAA Web
site at http://www.pscleanair.org/news/cleanairexpress.
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 53
Northern Arizona University Involvement
As was discussed in Chapter 3, Dr. Terry Baxter, Ph.D., P.E., of the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at NAU participated in the Visioning Session and provided
background support by presenting a slide show entitled “We Can’t Afford Polluted Air!”
that had previously been developed by the Department. The University has played a key
role in guiding and supporting the environmental concerns and goals of the region—NAU’s
involvement in the air quality outreach program will be no less important.
As the effort to sustain and improve the quality of County air progresses, the University
can provide technical expertise and oversight and can serve as a supporting reference for
techniques and strategies that are adopted and recommended by the program.
OVERVIEW OF OUTREACH IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the outreach program consists of three major components:
• Establish Institutional Framework
• Finalize and Publish Collateral Material
• Initiate Outreach Campaign
For each component, the project team has developed a list of actions needed to implement
the outreach program. The specific actions for implementing the program are listed in
chronological order in Table 16, which is structured as a template to be used in assigning
responsibilities and milestones for each of the program components.
Once the institutional framework has been established, the program coordinator

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library.

Full Text

Air Quality
Sustainability Program
in Coconino County
Cathy D. Arthur
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
Prepared ffor
Prepared by
and
Updated to July 15, 2004
i
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation
ADT Annual Average Daily Traffic count
APS Arizona Public Service
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CO Carbon Monoxide
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
FMPO Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization
GRCA Grand Canyon
IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NACOG Northern Arizona Council of Governments
NAU Northern Arizona University
NH3 Ammonia
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter
PSCAA Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SOV Single Occupant Vehicle
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis
TAC Technical Advisory Committee
μg/m3 Micrograms per cubic meter
VMT Vehicle-Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1
STUDY BACKGROUND.......................................................................... 1
GOAL OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................ 2
REPORT SUMMARY.............................................................................. 2
2. BACKGROUND.................................................................................... 5
SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN COCONINO COUNTY.......................... 5
AIR QUALITY IN COCONINO COUNTY ................................................... 7
3. VISIONING SESSION...........................................................................16
PRESENTATIONS.................................................................................16
FEEDBACK FROM VISIONING GROUP....................................................17
4. CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN ..................................................................25
PREFERRED STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING AIR QUALITY.......................25
CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN ...................................................................41
5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OUTREACH PROGRAM.............................43
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE PROGRAM.......................................43
THEME OF THE OUTREACH PROGRAM.................................................43
TARGET AUDIENCES...........................................................................44
OUTREACH SPONSORS ........................................................................47
PROGRAM COMPONENTS ....................................................................48
RECOMMENDED OUTREACH TECHNIQUES ...........................................48
EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH .................................................................52
OVERVIEW OF OUTREACH IMPLEMENTATION......................................53
APPENDIX A. SAMPLE OUTREACH FACT SHEETS ...................................55
APPENDIX B. SAMPLE SLIDE SHOW SCRIPT ............................................63
REFERENCES .........................................................................................66
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ................................................ 3
2. PROFILE OF SELECTED COCONINO COUNTY
SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS: 2000 - BY REGION.................... 6
3. TONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS EMITTED ANNUALLY
BY AREA INDUSTRIES (1999)............................................................. 9
4. AIR QUALITY MONITORS IN COCONINO COUNTY .............................11
5. PERSONS WHO ATTENDED APRIL 30 VISIONING SESSION ..................17
6. IMPORTANT AIR QUALITY ISSUES FOR COCONINO COUNTY .............18
7. S.W.O.T. ANALYSIS FOR COCONINO COUNTY ..................................19
8. CATEGORIES USED IN CLASSIFYING
AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES ......................................21
9. VOTING RESULTS FOR AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES.....23
10. HOW STRATEGIES SUPPORT THE AIR QUALITY GOALS .....................24
11. CHARACTERISTICS OF PREFERRED AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES...........................................................26
12. SELECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY BEST PRACTICES ...........................27
13. CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN FOR COCONINO COUNTY.........................42
14. MATRIX OF CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINING AIR QUALITY IN
COCONINO COUNTY.......................................................................45
15. POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY OUTREACH COMPONENTS........................49
18. AIR QUALITY SUSTAINABILITY
OUTREACH IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TEMPLATE .............................54
iv
TABLE OF FIGURES
Page
1. LOCATIONS OF INDUSTRIES EMITTING CO, NOx, VOC, SO2, PM10,
PM2.5, OR NH3 IN OR NEAR COCONINO COUNTY ................................10
2. ANNUAL PM10 TRENDS IN ARIZONA................................................12
3. TRENDS IN VISIBILITY AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK ...........13
4. 1996-2018 TOTAL COCONINO COUNTY MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS ...14
5. POLLUTANTS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO REDUCED VISIBILITY ON
THE WORST DAYS IN 1997 AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK ......15
6. PROPOSED LOGO FOR THE AIR AWARE OUTREACH EFFORT .............44
7. AIR AWARE OUTREACH DATABASE FORM.......................................47
8. ADOT AIR AWARE WEB SITE HOME PAGE ........................................50
9. EXAMPLE WEB PORTAL PAGE.........................................................51
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Coconino County is the largest county in Arizona and the second largest in the United
States. The County is also one of the fastest growing regions in Arizona. The County’s
population grew from approximately 96,591 in 1990 to 116,320 in 2000. County
population is projected to grow to 169,343 residents by 2020, a 46 percent increase in the
2000 population. [1], [2]
The 18,608 square mile county is one of the more topographically diverse regions of North
America, containing scrub deserts, vast prairies, and numerous mountain ranges. In
addition to the Grand Canyon, tourists visit Wupatki and Sunset Crater National
Monuments, Walnut Canyon, and Oak Creek Canyon. Attractions in Northern Coconino
County include Lake Powell National Recreation Area, Pipe Springs National Monument,
Marble Canyon, and the Vermilion Cliffs.
The County has four communities incorporated under the laws of Arizona: Flagstaff, a
statistical metropolitan area; Page; Williams; and Fredonia. Two other communities,
Leupp and Tuba City, are designated urban centers of the Navajo Nation.
Improving both the air quality and the level of visibility in Coconino County are
increasingly recognized as important goals.
STUDY BACKGROUND
Although Coconino County is currently in attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), the dramatic population growth expected during the next 20 years
may threaten this classification status. Rapid growth over the past decade has increased
the number and intensity of air pollution-generating activities in the County, including on-road
automobile and truck traffic; off-road vehicles; rail traffic; residential; commercial
and road construction; and wood-burning fireplaces.
Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) and congestion have increased as a consequence of
population growth. The County, the City of Flagstaff, and the Flagstaff Metropolitan
Planning Organization (FMPO) are all committed to decreasing VMT and congestion by
reducing the percentage of trips made in single occupant automobiles, increasing the use of
transit, and facilitating more bicycle and pedestrian travel. Additional transit service has
been introduced in Flagstaff, and more upgrades are anticipated. However, the automobile
is the dominant means of travel in rural areas of the County. Moreover, many secondary
County and U. S. Forest Service roads are unpaved, and the tires of vehicles using them in
dry weather eject dust into the air. Increased usage of unpaved roadways in outlying areas
commensurate with area population growth may degrade air quality unless action is taken
to manage the growth and mitigate its impacts.
Unlike many growing areas of Arizona, Coconino County is in the enviable position of
being classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as an attainment area
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 2
for carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (one-hour standard), and fine particulate matter (PM10).
Another air quality issue that may need to be addressed, and is often of concern to
Flagstaff area citizens due to visibility considerations, is the problem of urban haze or the
“brown cloud.”
GOAL OF THE PROJECT
Coconino County would like to retain its attainment status and maintain healthful and clear
air quality for its residents by implementing proactive strategies to reduce or offset the
effects of anticipated growth. Area jurisdictions and organizations can benefit from the
development of a framework for air quality management. The goal of this study has been
to identify air quality improvement strategies and develop a Clean Air Action Plan that will
facilitate the involvement of the community in improving air quality in Coconino County.
The following objectives were carried out:
• A Visioning Process was initiated that accommodated area constituencies including
elected officials, local government representatives, and other stakeholders.
• Local formulation of a Vision Statement representing stakeholder consensus was
facilitated.
• Current air quality was described and key pollutants that pose the greatest threats to
clean air improvement were identified.
• The best practices for controlling the amounts of the key pollutants in the air as
area population grows were selected and documented.
• A comprehensive Outreach Program designed to kick-off the Clean Air Action Plan
has been developed.
• An Implementation Plan framework that will enable each stakeholder jurisdiction
and organization to participate in the clean air program and facilitate coordination
among all the stakeholders has been outlined.
The Project was conducted under the guidance of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
and in coordination with key stakeholders. Members of the TAC are listed in Table 1.
REPORT SUMMARY
Chapter 2 provides an overview of current and future demographics and traffic conditions,
a technical assessment of air quality trends at the local and national levels, and an
inventory of local policies and plans that contribute to cleaner air. The chapter also
summarizes the socioeconomic conditions in Coconino County and examines the status of
air quality in the County, including data on current emission levels. The characteristics
and health impacts of major pollutants are reviewed.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 3
TABLE 1. TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Organization Representative
Arizona Department of
Transportation
Pat Cupell, Sr. Transportation Planner
Arizona Department of
Transportation
Beverly Chenausky, Sr. Transportation Planner
Arizona Department of
Transportation
James Zumpf, FMPO Liaison
Coconino County Jerry Flannery, Assistant County Manager
Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning
Organization
David Wessel, Planner
National Park Service- Sam Henderson, Superintendent -
Flagstaff Areas
National Weather Service Mike Campbell, Meteorologist-in-Charge
Northern Arizona University Craig A. Roberts, Ph.D., P.E., Department of Civil
Engineering
U. S. Forest Service James W. Golden,
Coconino Forest Supervisor
U. S. Forest Service Pete Lahm, Air Quality Specialist
Project Team
Lima & Associates
Peter M. Lima, Ph.D., P.E., Principal
Robert H. Bohannan, AICP, Transportation Planner
Cathy D. Arthur, Independent Consultant
Chapter 3 describes the Visioning Session that took place on April 30, 2003, including
presentations made by the Project Team and by Northern Arizona University Professor
Terry Baxter and the feedback obtained from Session participants. The Visioning Session
included elected officials, local government representatives, and other stakeholders. At the
session, background information was presented by the project team. Attendees submitted
ideas to the project team that were subsequently developed into a Vision Statement. The
project team next facilitated an exercise in which measures and programs for sustaining air
quality were identified and prioritized. Using the results of the Visioning Session, the
project team developed a draft Clean Air Action Plan that was mailed to attendees and
members of the TAC for review and comment.
Chapter 4 presents the foundation for a Clean Air Action Plan for the County including the
ten air quality improvement strategies preferred by Visioning Session participants. These
strategies are:
1. Encourage Energy Efficiency and Renewable Sources of Energy
2. Conduct Education/Outreach Program to Sustain Clean Air
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 4
3. Encourage Alternatives to Single Occupant Vehicle Travel
4. Dust Control Plans with Mitigation Bond Requirements
5. Clean Burning Fireplaces in New Construction
6. Episode Curtailment Program for Wood Smoke
7. Innovative Land Use Planning to Encourage Multimodal Opportunities
8. Integrate Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality Decision-Making
9. Stabilize or Reduce Speeds on Unpaved Roads
10. Retrofit Municipal Diesel Vehicles and Equipment
A table outlines the final Clean Air Action Plan including action items, responsibilities,
and time schedule.
Chapter 5 proposes a structure for a comprehensive educational and outreach program to
sustain clean air in the County and presents a plan for implementing the program. A draft
logo for the outreach program has been prepared. In addition, a matrix recommending
outreach approaches for each of the ten control strategies in the action plan is provided.
Recommended outreach techniques include:
• Identification of a “champion” or “champions” among the stakeholders to lead the
effort
• Establishment of a stakeholder database
• Linkage to and coordination with the ADOT AIR AWARE Web site
• Involvement of local schools and Northern Arizona University
The following sample draft elements of the program are provided:
• A set of fact sheets supporting the control measures in the Action Plan
• A slide show script
An outreach implementation plan template is presented that lists the actions needed to
implement the program as an aid in assigning responsibilities and milestones.
Presentation of Findings
The findings and recommendations of this study were presented to a Work Session of the
Coconino County Board of Supervisors on July 13, 2004.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 5
2. BACKGROUND
The first section of this chapter briefly summarizes area demographics as a basis for
understanding the challenges faced in sustaining air quality for Coconino County. The
preservation of air quality and visibility in a region is inexorably linked to that area’s land
use and transportation policies, as well as to the ways in which area growth and
development occur. The number of VMT, miles of roads paved, area’s commitment to
alternative modes of transportation, and area home heating practices all affect the ability to
preserve clean and clear air.
Next, this chapter discusses Coconino County air quality data and issues including the
sources of air pollution, the location of stationary sources, and the effect of air pollutants
on area visibility.
SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN COCONINO COUNTY
Based on the US Census, the Year 2000 population of Coconino County was 116,320
residents. Of the total County population, 65.1 percent were White, 29.7 percent were
Native American, 10.9 were Hispanic or Latino, 1.4 percent were black or African
American, and 1.1 percent were Asian. A total of 8,143 persons, or 7.0 percent of the
total County population, were aged 65 years and over. The County had a total of 52,443
housing units. Of these, 40,448 units were occupied and 12,995 units were vacant. A
total of 9,155 of the units are for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. The average
household size in the County was 2.80.
The U. S. Census Bureau projects that the total Coconino County population will reach
152,002 by 2012, and increase of almost 31 percent. By 2022, County population is
projected to grow another 14 percent to 173,455.
Table 2 profiles several socioeconomic characteristics that have a direct bearing on the
improvement of air quality and visibility. While almost seven percent of County
households lack automobiles, less than one percent of those commuting to work used
transit. However, more than 16 percent of County commuters carpool. These statistics
reflect the broad dispersion of persons within the county, but also suggest that a niche for
additional local and regional transit services exists. Over 15 percent of homes use wood as
a heating fuel, suggesting that adherence to and enforcement of local woodburning stove
ordinances are critical components of any air quality improvement effort.
County land use and ownership is as varied as the topography, and much of the land is
owned or controlled by public sector agencies including agencies of the federal government
and the State of Arizona or by Native American tribes.
While the majority of trips within Coconino County take place by automobile, the
County’s transportation system includes a variety of modes and methods by which persons
and goods travel to, within, or through the County.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 6
TABLE 2. PROFILE OF SELECTED COCONINO COUNTY SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS: 2000 - BY REGION
Flagstaff Region
Grand Canyon
Region Page Sedona Tuba City Region Williams Region
Remainder of
County County Total
Subject Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Employment Status
Population 16 years and over 45,750 100.00% 1,623 100.00% 4,973 100.00% 8,990 100.00% 5,588 100.00% 3,047 100.00% 25,996 100.00% 86,977 100.00%
In labor force 33,743 73.76% 1,486 91.56% 3,617 72.73% 5,167 57.47% 3,404 60.92% 2,043 67.05% 15,395 59.22% 59,688 68.63%
Armed Forces 25 0.05% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 16 0.53% 0 0.00% 41 0.05%
Civilian labor force 33,718 73.70% 1,486 91.56% 3,617 72.73% 5,167 57.47% 3,404 60.92% 2,027 66.52% 15,395 59.22% 59,647 68.58%
Employed 32,044 70.04% 1,438 88.60% 3,396 68.29% 4,917 54.69% 2,911 52.09% 1,913 62.78% 13,808 53.12% 55,510 63.82%
Unemployed 1,674 3.66% 48 2.96% 221 4.44% 250 2.78% 493 8.82% 114 3.74% 1,587 6.10% 4,137 4.76%
Not in labor force 12,007 26.24% 137 8.44% 1,356 27.27% 3,823 42.53% 2,184 39.08% 1,004 32.95% 10,601 40.78% 27,289 31.37%
Commuting to Work
Workers 16 years and over 31,231 100.00% 1,421 100.00% 3,352 100.00% 4,825 100.00% 2,876 100.00% 1,903 100.00% 13,500 100.00% 54,283 100.00%
Car, truck, or van - - drove alone 21,917 70.18% 618 43.49% 2,443 72.88% 3,339 69.20% 1,615 56.15% 1,186 62.32% 9,163 67.87% 36,942 68.05%
Car, truck, or van - - carpooled 4,675 14.97% 141 9.92% 572 17.06% 426 8.83% 763 26.53% 334 17.55% 2,493 18.47% 8,978 16.54%
Public transportation (including
taxicab)
185 0.59% 41 2.89% 29 0.87% 0.00% 4 0.14% 16 0.84% 101 0.75% 376 0.69%
Walked 2,060 6.60% 531 37.37% 147 4.39% 232 4.81% 390 13.56% 210 11.04% 779 5.77% 4,117 7.58%
Other means 1,276 4.09% 77 5.42% 103 3.07% 154 3.19% 45 1.56% 46 2.42% 245 1.81% 1,792 3.30%
Worked at home 1,118 3.58% 13 0.91% 58 1.73% 674 13.97% 59 2.05% 111 5.83% 719 5.33% 2,078 3.83%
Mean travel time to work (minutes)1 84 - - 10 14 - - - 19 (X)
Vehicles Available per Household
Occupied housing units 21,416 100.00% 864 100.00% 2,342 100.00% 4,937 100.00% 2,231 100.00% 1,535 100.00% 12,060 100.00% 40,448 100.00%
None 1,274 5.95% 103 11.92% 114 4.87% 161 3.26% 206 9.23% 114 7.43% 979 8.12% 2,790 6.90%
1 7,428 34.68% 395 45.72% 794 33.90% 1,811 36.68% 1,027 46.03% 463 30.16% 3,742 31.03% 13,849 34.20%
2 8,762 40.91% 289 33.45% 947 40.44% 2,183 44.22% 672 30.12% 546 35.57% 4,587 38.03% 15,803 39.10%
3 or more 3,902 18.22% 77 8.91% 487 20.79% 782 15.84% 326 14.61% 412 26.84% 2,802 23.23% 8,006 19.80%
House Heating Fuel
Occupied housing units 21,416 100.00% 864 100.00% 2,342 100.00% 4,937 100.00% 2,231 100.00% 1,535 100.00% 12,060 100.00% 40,448 100.00%
Utility gas 17,440 81.43% 113 13.08% 623 26.60% 3,663 74.19% 210 9.41% 897 58.44% 3,025 25.08% 22,308 55.15%
Bottled, tank, or LP gas 918 4.29% 362 41.90% 170 7.26% 327 6.62% 934 41.86% 320 20.85% 3,529 29.26% 6,233 15.41%
Electricity 2,147 10.03% 254 29.40% 1,118 47.74% 838 16.97% 274 12.28% 127 8.27% 1,123 9.31% 5,043 12.47%
Fuel oil, kerosene, etc 69 0.32% 41 4.75% - 0.00% 0.00% 11 0.49% 3 0.20% 87 0.72% 211 0.52%
Coal or coke 0 0.00% 0 0.00% - 0.00% 0.00% 55 2.47% 0 0.00% 6 0.05% 61 0.15%
Wood 799 3.73% 89 10.30% 368 15.71% 7 0.14% 729 32.68% 177 11.53% 4,192 34.76% 6,354 15.71%
Solar energy 14 0.07% 0 0.00% - 0.00% 8 0.16% 0 0.00% 7 0.46% 29 0.24% 50 0.12%
Other fuel 16 0.07% 5 0.58% 63- 2.69% 0.00% 18 0.81% 2 0.13% 40 0.33% 144 0.36%
No fuel used 13 0.06% 0 0.00% 0.00% 31 0.63% 0 0.00% 2 0.13% 29 0.24% 44 0.11%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.
1If the denominator of a mean value or per capita value is less than 30, then that value is calculated using a rounded aggregate in the numerator.
- Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X) = Not applicable.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 7
AIR QUALITY IN COCONINO COUNTY
The air in Coconino County is healthy to breathe, according to monitoring data collected
by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, the National Park Service, and the
Salt River Project. Violations of the national ambient air quality standards do not occur in
the County. However, on some days regional haze causes perceptible reductions in
visibility. This section describes the air quality, meteorology, and sources of emissions in
Coconino County.
Sources of Air Pollution
In response to the Clean Air Act of 1977, the EPA established National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for six pollutants that can adversely affect human health and welfare.
These six, called criteria pollutants, are carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone,
particulates, and sulfur dioxide. In general, the sources of emissions contributing to
formation of these six criteria pollutants and regional haze can be grouped into five major
categories: on-road vehicles, non-road engines, point sources, area sources, and
miscellaneous sources.
• On-road vehicles are powered by gasoline and diesel fuel and include automobiles,
light duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, buses, and motorcycles. This category
represents a significant source of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, volatile organic
compound, and particulate emissions.
• Non-road engines include lawn and garden equipment, construction equipment,
farm equipment, off-road vehicles, aircraft, and trains. This source is a smaller,
but growing source of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic
compounds, and particulate emissions.
• Point sources include large industrial operations such as electric utilities,
manufacturing plants, metals processing facilities, chemical plants, and mines.
Sulfur dioxide and lead are emitted primarily by point sources. Industrial
processes can also be a major contributor of volatile organic compounds. Other
criteria pollutants or precursors may be emitted by a point source depending upon
the type of industrial operation.
• Area sources are emission-producing activities conducted over a broad and variable
geographic area, such as painting, dry cleaning, construction activity, and wood
combustion. Area sources tend to be a major source of volatile organic compounds
and particulates. One or more of the other criteria pollutants or precursors may
also be emitted by an area source depending upon the type of activity.
• Miscellaneous sources include forest fires, agricultural fires, and wind blown dust.
These three miscellaneous sources emit particulates and also contribute to hazy
conditions.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 8
Location of Stationary Sources
Potential stationary sources of air pollutants include electrical power plants, mining
operations, and other industrial sites. More than a dozen facilities operate within or
adjacent to Coconino County that emit significant amounts of carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), or ammonia (NH3). The Environmental Protection
Agency monitors the activities of these stationary sources and tracks the tons of pollutants
each generates annually.[3] The latest data for these facilities—1999—is presented in Table
3, and the locations of the facilities are shown in Figure 1. The first column of Table 3 is
a “Map Key” that lists numbers on Figure 1 that show the location of the facilities.
The site that produces the most emissions is the Navajo Generating Station. This facility
emits almost six times as much total tons of emissions as the next largest source. The
Navajo Generating Station is also the largest source of each of the pollutants with the
exception of VOCs. One of the El Paso Natural Gas facilities east of Flagstaff produces
nearly five times the VOCs than the Navajo facility emits.
Monitoring Data
In 2000, there were nine air quality monitors operating in Coconino County: two in
Flagstaff, two at the Grand Canyon, two in Sycamore Canyon, and one each at Page,
Sedona, and the Tusayan airport.[4] Table 4 identifies the location of each monitor, the
operator, and the pollutants measured. Sampling ended in 2000 at the monitor located at
Tusayan Airport.
Carbon monoxide is not monitored in Coconino County, because the concentrations are
known to be far below the standard. Carbon monoxide levels have declined significantly
in all parts of Arizona as a result of catalytic converters and electronic ignition systems in
new vehicles.
Lead is monitored in Coconino County, but lead concentrations have fallen dramatically
over the last twenty-five years, as a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline and the
implementation of stationary source fuel combustion controls. In general, lead
concentrations are a small fraction of the federal standards at all 16 monitors operating in
Arizona.
Recent air quality data collected at monitors in Coconino County show no violations of the
national ambient air quality standards. Ozone is the only pollutant that approaches the
standard on hot summer days. In 1998-2000, the highest eight-hour ozone readings at the
South Rim of the Grand Canyon were about 90 percent of the standard. During this same
period, peak concentrations in Page were 80 percent of the standard.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 9
TABLE 3. TONS OF AIR POLLUTANTS EMITTED ANNUALLY BY AREA INDUSTRIES (1999)
Pollutant
Map
Key County Plant Name
SIC
Code VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 NH3
Total
Emissions
1 Coconino Intermountain Refining 2951 4.68 62.52 2.87 795.08 NA NA NA 865.15
2 Coconino Kaibab Forest Products 2421 NA NA NA NA 31.61 12.06 0.06 31.67
3 Coconino Navajo Generating Station 4911 232.59 35275.24 1939.23 9162.60 1886.10 855.69 2.66 48498.42
4 Coconino Transwestern Pipeline 4922 62.29 1377.72 175.05 1.19 2.06 1.45 NA 1618.31
5 Coconino El Paso Natural Gas Co. 4922 1073.18 2812.01 378.05 0.56 NA NA NA 4263.80
6 Coconino Transwestern Pipeline 4922 14.49 619.53 533.29 0.14 2.29 1.61 NA 1169.74
7 Coconino El Paso Natural Gas Co. 4922 98.87 2450.12 316.80 0.38 NA NA NA 2866.17
8 Coconino Ralston Purina Company 2048 0.62 29.09 2.45 26.76 6.63 3.71 NA 65.55
9 Coconino Northern Arizona University 8221 0.41 54.51 5.08 0.08 0.44 0.41 NA 60.52
10 Coconino U. S. Army Navajo Depot 4911 0.16 2.98 0.65 1.28 0.14 0.05 NA 5.21
11 Coconino El Paso Natural Gas Co. 4922 161.18 7493.56 955.96 1.79 NA NA NA 8612.49
12 Yavapai El Paso Natural Gas Co. 4922 NA 94.59 NA 0.08 NA NA NA 94.67
13 Yavapai Chemical Lime Company 1499 NA 1196.83 866.95 1404.61 NA NA NA 3468.39
14 Yavapai Phoenix Cement 3241 NA 2648.31 296.85 407.83 157.58 52.9 NA 3510.57
15 Gila Payson Regional Medical Ctr. 4959 NA 0.17 0.03 NA 0.17 0.17 NA 0.37
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Emission Trends database
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 10
FIGURE 1. LOCATIONS OF INDUSTRIES EMITTING CO, NOx, VOC, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, OR NH3
IN OR NEAR COCONINO COUNTY
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Emission Trends database
Grand Canyon
National Park
Petrified Forest
National Park
Baldy Peak
Wilderness
Mazatzal
Wilderness
Pine Mountain
Wilderness
Sycamore Canyon
Wilderness
1
1
2
1. Intermountain Refining
2. Kaibab Forest Products
3. Navajo Generating Station
4. Transwestern Pipeline
5. El Paso Natural Gas
6. Transwestern Pipeline
3
8 7 6 5 4
10 9
14
15
12 11
13
7. El Paso Natural Gas
8. Ralston Purina
9. Northern Arizona University
10. U. S. Army Navajo Depot
11. El Paso Natural Gas
12. El Paso Natural Gas
13. Chemical Lime
14. Phoenix Cement
15. Payson Regional Medical Center
Plant In or Near Coconino County
Other Plant site in Northern Arizona
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 11
TABLE 4. AIR QUALITY MONITORS IN COCONINO COUNTY
Monitor Location Operator Pollutant
Flagstaff, ADOT 5701 E. Railroad Ave ADEQ PM10
Flagstaff, Middle School 755 N. Bonito ADEQ PM10, PM2.5
Grand Canyon, Hance Camp S. Rim, 2.5 mi W. of Village NPS O3, Pb, Visibility
Grand Canyon, Indian
Gardens
4.5 mi from Bright Angel
T.H.
NPS Visibility, Pb
Page, Navajo Generating
Station
3 mi E. of Page SRP O3, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, SO2
Sedona Post Office ADEQ PM10
Sycamore Canyon Camp Raymond ADEQ Light Scattering (PM)
Sycamore Canyon Camp Raymond NPS Visibility
Tusayan Airport ADEQ PM10, PM2.5
Source: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Other pollutants measured in Coconino County are well below the applicable standards.
Nitrogen dioxide at the Page Navajo Generating Station is 96 percent less than the
standard. Particulates in the County are one-third of the annual standard or less, while
24-hour concentrations are even lower. The sulfur dioxide levels measured at Page are
negligible.
The only pollutant currently measured in Flagstaff is particulate matter. The Middle
School monitor collects particle samples that are smaller than 10 microns (PM10) and
smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The ADOT monitor measures PM10 only. During the
mid-1980’s, annual concentrations of PM10 in Flagstaff averaged nearly 40 μg/m3, or
almost 80 percent of the standard. In recent years, annual PM10 levels have averaged only
15 μg/m3, representing more than a 60 percent decline since 1985. This reduction can be
attributed to the paving of dirt roads, cleaner burning woodstoves and fireplaces, and
smoke management programs.
Meteorology
Meteorology plays an important role in the formation, transport, and dispersion of air
pollution. In general, the driest years will produce the highest annual PM10 concentrations.
Dry years with especially windy days can also lead to higher 24-hour PM10 concentrations.
Cold winters can result in higher PM2.5 due to increased use of fireplaces and wood stoves.
The photochemical reaction that produces ground-level ozone occurs at ambient
temperatures over 90 degrees Fahrenheit; so hotter summers typically produce higher
ozone readings.
Relative humidity also plays an important role in the formation of sulfates and nitrates that
contribute to regional haze. Higher humidity increases the size of sulfate and nitrate
particles, which in turn, increases their ability to scatter light. (Light scattering and
absorption are the two phenomena that cause the extinction of light by regional haze.)
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 12
Higher humidity is one reason that regional haze is worse in the Eastern U. S. than the
West.
The prevailing wind direction at the Flagstaff airport throughout the year is from the
South/Southwest. This means that pollutants transported from Phoenix, Yuma, and
Southern California may contribute to regional haze hanging over the Colorado Plateau and
Coconino County.[5]
The Impact of Emissions on Area Visibility
Figure 2 illustrates the downward trend in annual PM10 concentrations in Flagstaff and
other locations in Arizona between 1985 and 2000. The PM10 data for the Grand Canyon
represents the average levels on the 20 percent worst visibility days as measured by the
IMPROVE monitors in 1990 through 1999.[6] PM10 levels at the Grand Canyon have not
exhibited the same downward trend as other locations in Arizona. Figure 3 illustrates the
trends in visibility at the Grand Canyon between 1990 and 1999. A change of one
deciview is perceptible to the human eye. Unfortunately, visibility on the haziest or
clearest days has not improved perceptibly over the ten-year period.
FIGURE 2. ANNUAL PM10 TRENDS IN ARIZONA
0
20
40
60
80
u g /m 3
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Flagstaff
Organ Pipe
Payson
Phoenix
Grand Canyon1
Standard
1Average PM concentrations on 20% worst visibility days 10
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 13
FIGURE 3. TRENDS IN VISIBILITY AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) has recently developed emissions data by
county for pollutants contributing to regional haze in the western U.S.[7] These data are
being used to model current and projected visibility impairment in Class I areas, including
the Grand Canyon. The latest mobile source emissions for Coconino County, derived
from the WRAP inventories, are shown in Figure 4.
As Figure 4 indicates, total mobile source emissions in Coconino County are expected to
decline by more than 40 percent by 2018. This reduction is due primarily to Tier 2 light-duty
standards, beginning with the 2004 model year, stricter heavy-duty vehicle and engine
controls, beginning with the 2007 model year, and low-sulfur gasoline and diesel fuels,
beginning in mid-2006. The magnitude of the decline in mobile source emissions is even
more impressive when you consider that the WRAP assumed vehicle-miles of travel in
Coconino County would grow by 70 percent between 1996 and 2018.
Visibility Modeling
In mid-2002, WRAP consultants conducted modeling to determine the impact of the
Federal Tier 2 and heavy duty vehicle and fuel controls, and other measures implemented
since 1996, on visibility in the Grand Canyon, Sycamore Canyon, and other Class I parks
and wilderness areas. Visibility on the worst days is expected to improve by .44 deciviews
at the Grand Canyon, but deteriorate by .81 deciviews at Sycamore Canyon. [7]
Year
Measurements of Haze (in Deciviews) and Its Effect on Visibility
Deciviews
Worst visibility
range is
63 - 79 miles
Best visibility
range is
140- 143 miles
A deciview is a measurement of haze that gauges the impact air pollutants have on visibility.
Zero deciviews is an indicator of clear conditions with no visibility impairment. The more
deciviews measured, the more visibility impairment that limits the distance that can be seen.
Worst and best visibility lines represent averages of the 20% worst and best visibility days,
respectively, during a given year.
Source: IMPROVE monitoring data from Colorado State University for the GRCA site
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 14
FIGURE 4. 1996-2018 TOTAL COCONINO COUNTY
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS
The impact which Coconino County emissions may have on present and future visibility at
the Grand Canyon and Sycamore Canyon has not been explicitly modeled by the WRAP.
However, some portion of the anthropogenic emissions contributing to regional haze at
these sites is produced locally.
One-third to one-half of the haze on the worst days is attributable to natural light particle
(Rayleigh) scattering. Figure 5 indicates that sulfates represent 43 percent of the human-caused
visibility problems in the Grand Canyon. [8] Sulfates are produced primarily by
power plants and industrial boilers. Crustal material from paved and unpaved roads and
construction activities contribute another 24 percent. The sources of these emissions are
likely to be very close to the Grand Canyon, because coarse particles are relatively heavy
and tend to deposit within a small radius of their source. The remaining pieces of the
pie—organic carbon, elemental carbon, and the non-industrial portion of the nitrates—are
emitted primarily by automobile and truck exhaust and combustion sources. In a worst
case scenario, these sources in Coconino County would contribute about 20 percent of the
regional haze at the Grand Canyon on a bad visibility day.
While the prevailing wind direction (south/southwest) minimizes the transport of emissions
from Flagstaff to the Grand Canyon and Sycamore Canyon, other downwind Class I areas
(i.e. Mesa Verde, Canyonlands, Arches, Weminuche) may experience visibility
impairment as a result of emissions from Coconino County. In addition, the source
attribution pie chart in Figure 5 and the modeling performed by the WRAP represent
average meteorological and emission conditions. On any given day, if the wind were
blowing from the Northeast or Southeast, Coconino County would contribute a greater
portion of the visibility degradation at the Grand Canyon, Sycamore Canyon, and/or other
downwind areas.
Tons/Day
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996 200 2004 2008 2012 2016 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016
Year
Total (Includes PM , PM , SO , VOC, NO , and CO) 10 2.5 2 X
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 15
FIGURE 5. POLLUTANTS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO REDUCED VISIBILITY
ON THE WORST DAYS IN 1997 AT GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Summary
In summary, the major pollutants of concern for Coconino County are ozone, PM2.5 and
PM10. Ozone is a potential problem because recent readings at the Grand Canyon show
eight-hour ozone levels to be within 90 percent of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard. PM2.5 levels need to be controlled in order to reduce their contribution to
formation of regional haze. PM10 also contributes to regional haze, although the coarser
fraction (greater than PM2.5) does not travel as far as the smaller fraction. To be most
effective in reducing visibility impairment at the Grand Canyon and Sycamore Canyon,
Coconino County efforts to reduce PM10 should focus on areas close to these Class I areas.
Sulfates
43%
Nitrates
8.5%
Elemental Carbon
8.5%
Crustal Material
24%
Organic Carbon
16%
Sulfates - predominantly
from utility and industrial
boilers
Nitrates - predominantly
from automobiles and
utility and industrial
boilers
Organic carbon particles -
from sources such as
automobiles, trucks, and
other industrial processes
Elemental carbon (soot) -
from diesel, wood, and
other combustion
Crustal material (soil dust) -
from roads, construction, and
agricultural activities
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 16
3. VISIONING SESSION
This chapter describes the elements of the Visioning Session, including the presentations
made by the Project Team and by Northern Arizona University Professor Terry Baxter and
the feedback obtained from Session participants. Visioning Session attendees are listed in
Table 5.
PRESENTATIONS
Background material prepared by the Project Team was E-mailed to Visioning Session
attendees in advance for review. Highlights of the background material and three
PowerPoint presentations were presented at the Visioning Session.
The background material presented at the Visioning Session included the goal and
objectives of this ADOT-funded study; local socioeconomic conditions; national and state
air pollutants, standards, sources, and trends; and air quality data, plans, and programs for
Coconino County.
Dr. Terry Baxter, Ph.D., P.E., of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
at NAU made a 35 mm slide presentation entitled, “We Can’t Afford Polluted Air!” Dr.
Baxter’s presentation emphasized the medical and aesthetic importance of maintaining
healthy air and improving visibility in the region.
Dr. Baxter indicated that the overarching goal should be to maintain a high quality of life
and healthful environment. He cited three important reasons to sustain good air quality in
the area: tourism, telescopes, and toddlers. He indicated that the number one cause of
school days missed is asthma and air pollution is one factor causing these attacks. To
support this contention, he stated that during the Rodeo-Chedeski fire in the summer of
2002 the Prescott hospital recorded the highest number of admissions in its history.
Dr. Baxter identified two air pollution threats to the community: ozone and PM2.5. He
expressed concern that high concentrations of ozone may exist in parts of the County that
are not being monitored. He indicated that PM2.5 is a problem from both a health and
visibility perspective and that high concentrations are typically caused by residential wood
smoke, controlled and uncontrolled forest fires, and temperature inversions. These
inversions trap polluted air near the ground on winter mornings.
Dr. Baxter pointed out that visibility at the Grand Canyon is worst during the summer
months. The number of days when visibility is good at the Grand Canyon has declined to
only 10 percent of the days in a year. Visibility at the Grand Canyon is also considered to
be poor on about 10 percent of the days.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 17
TABLE 5. PERSONS WHO ATTENDED APRIL 30 VISIONING SESSION
Organization Representative
Arizona Department of Transportation Pat Cupell, Sr. Transportation Planner
BNSF Railway Mike McCallister, BNSF Project Engineer
City of Flagstaff Hon. Libby Silva, Vice Mayor
City of Sedona Charles Mosley, Engineer
Coconino County Gene Stanley, County Surveyor
Coconino County Hon. Paul Babbitt, County Supervisor
Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce Thomas Vincent, Government Affairs
Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization David Wessel, Planner
Friends of Flagstaff's Future Becky Daggett, Executive Director
Grand Canyon Trust Rick Moore
Mountain Line Jeff Meilbeck, General Manager
Northern Arizona University Terry Baxter, Ph.D.
Project Team Cathy Arthur, Rob Bohannan
Dr. Baxter posed the question, “How can we make a difference at the local and national
levels?” He recommends that cost-effective air quality measures be implemented and
advocates the placement of additional air quality monitors in the County. In addition, he
believes the County or local jurisdictions should track state, regional and national
environmental issues. He is especially concerned about the lack of control over federal
policies and the potential rollback of initiatives such as the New Source Review Program
and “Clear Skies”.
After lunch, the Project Team provided an overview of potential air quality improvement
strategies that could be implemented by local governments in Coconino County. Measures
such as vehicle inspection and maintenance, reformulated fuels, and vapor recovery
systems at gas stations were excluded from consideration, because these require State
legislation.
Fifty air quality improvement strategies were described, along with the pollutants they
reduce, and the most-likely mechanism for implementation (i.e., ordinance, voluntary
program, municipal plan, municipal program, or zoning). Examples of municipalities that
have already implemented these measures were also identified.
FEEDBACK FROM VISIONING GROUP
Session attendees provided feedback on their collective air quality vision for Coconino
County. The feedback provided during four interactive phases of the session,
Introductions, Brainstorm Strategic Issues, Formulate the Vision Statement, and Prioritize
Air Quality Improvement Strategies, is described below.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 18
Introductions
To kick-off the session, attendees were asked to introduce themselves and describe what
they considered to be the most important air quality issues facing Coconino County. The
issues mentioned by the group are summarized in Table 6. Most notable about the
responses is the breadth of the issues identified. This suggests that the participants
represented diverse constituencies and interest groups within their communities and
brought considerable knowledge and understanding of air quality issues to the session.
TABLE 6. IMPORTANT AIR QUALITY ISSUES FOR COCONINO COUNTY
1. Single occupant vehicles (SOVs) [2]
2. Trucks on I-40 and I-17 [2]
3. Fireplaces, wood stoves and other wood burning [5]
4. Transport of pollution from Los Angeles
5. Navajo Generating Station and other large stationary sources [2]
6. Construction dust
7. Other sources of dust
8. Cinders used to de-ice roads
9. Transportation sources [2]
10. National policies
11. Lake Powell and the Grand Canyon
12. Tourist traffic
13. Traffic congestion
14. Older vehicles
15. Unpaved roads
16. Prescribed fires and the drought
[ ] – Number of times mentioned by visioning group
Members of the group identified motor vehicles as an air quality issue nine times (i.e.,
single occupant vehicles, trucks on I-40 and I-17, transportation sources, tourist traffic,
traffic congestion, and older vehicles), while fireplaces, wood stoves and other wood
burning were cited five times. Note that dust generating activities were mentioned three
times (i.e. construction, unpaved roads, and other dust) and two of large stationary sources
such as the Navajo Generating Station in Page.
Brainstorming Strategic Issues
During lunch, the visioning group participated in a brainstorming session to identify
strategic issues associated with improving air quality in Coconino County. This type of
exercise is called a Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (S.W.O.T.) analysis.
Table 7 summarizes the results.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 19
TABLE 7. S.W.O.T. ANALYSIS FOR COCONINO COUNTY
With respect to improving air quality in Coconino County, the following represent
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Constraints
Groups like F3 – Friends
of Flagstaff’s Future,
Keep Sedona Beautiful
Low per-capita
income
Persons can benefit from transit
financially
Proposed additional
power plants on
Colorado Plateau
Need Tribal input
Recognition of air quality
as valuable natural
resource
Rural nature of
county leads to auto
dependence
broad based support for protecting
“golden goose” quality of life visual
appeal of area (feds)
Population growth Large Size of county
leads to auto
dependence
Large enough to be
sophisticated, small
enough to be agile
Older vehicle fleets 15% wood use – could reduce Catastrophic Forest
fires
Fed regs (Clear Skies,
Pollution Trading)
Good planning tradition State laws governing
subdivisions wildcat
subs (dirt roads)
Exchange with Tribes – wood stoves,
education County & Flagstaff work with
Indian communities on building codes,
technology exchange
Lack of regional rule
making or consensus
(CA)
State laws governing
subdivisions
Coop effort between
govt. agencies, culture of
peer coop
Unpaved Tribal roads
– other rural areas
Renewable energy – new sources Balance air, water,
waste
Proximity to California
– California power
made in Arizona
Transport
Low emissions to area
ratio
Lack of resources for
Renewable energy
Alternatives to campfires in parks and
forests
Limited resources for
attainment areas
Attractiveness of Visual
amenities clear air task
force
High use of wood for
heat (Census)
Air quality crosses jurisdictional
boundaries
Attainment area National Parks in close proximity
(Federal support)
WRAP, NAU
(information resources)
Small diameter Logs
Solar potential Tuba City facility (renewable energy)
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 20
Some key strengths identified for Coconino County are
• Air quality is already recognized as a valuable natural resource
• A strong tradition of planning and cooperation in the region exists
• Groups such as Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, Keep Sedona Beautiful, and the
Grand Canyon Trust provide strong environmental leadership
• A wealth of information and technical resources such as NAU and the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) are available
• Excellent potential for the generation of solar energy exists;
• Area is large enough to be sophisticated, but small enough to be agile.
Weaknesses cited include low per-capita income, the rural nature of the area leading to
auto dependence, and a high use of wood for heating. Examples of opportunities for
redressing these weaknesses and improving air quality include exchanging information with
the Tribal communities, developing sources of renewable energy, proximity to national
parks (attracting Federal resources), and broad-based community support for protecting the
quality of life and visual appeal of the area.
Some threats to improving air quality include proposed new power plants on the Colorado
Plateau; population growth; catastrophic forest fires; lack of regional rule-making and
influence on other states such as California; and balancing the management of air quality,
water quality, and solid waste.
Constraints on improving air quality include the need for Tribal input, the large size of the
County, federal regulations, state laws allowing wildcat subdivisions, proximity to and
producing power for California, and the limited resources available for attainment areas
such as Coconino County.
Formulate Vision Statement
After participating in the S.W.O.T. analysis, members of the group were asked to
contribute phrases that would be suitable in an air quality vision statement for Coconino
County. The following vision statement paragraph and supporting language were
developed using concepts provided by the participants:
In 1958, a TWA pilot who had just flown across America radioed the control tower
that “The cleanest air on the continent was in Flagstaff Arizona.” Coconino
County will preserve and protect this reputation: All levels of government in the
County will work together to preserve healthy air, improve visibility, and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Coconino County will recognize agencies that advocate
clean air or help improve air quality and encourage alternatives to single occupancy
vehicles such as carpools, buses, bicycles, and walking. The County will also
encourage the use of new technologies such as solar energy and telecommuting.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 21
The County will think globally but act locally to enhance our air quality and
environment.
To support this vision, concepts presented by participants together with the findings of
previous air quality sustainability efforts suggest the following action items:
Establishment of an Air Quality Steering Committee
Development and implementation of an Education/Outreach Program
Identification and implementation of voluntary air quality preservation measures
Development and implementation of plans, policies, ordinances, and services such
as a response system to provide advisories on ambient or predicted air quality
conditions
After concepts for inclusion in the Vision Statement and supporting language were
recorded, candidate strategies for realizing the concepts were evaluated by the participants
as described in the following section.
Prioritize Air Quality Improvement Strategies
After reviewing potential air quality improvement strategies, each member of the visioning
group received fifty 3” x 5” index cards. Each index card described an improvement
strategy, the pollutants reduced, and the most-likely implementation mechanism. Each of
the 50 strategies was assigned to 1 of 10 categories and assigned a number relating it to the
category. Hence the ten strategies for controlling fugitive dust, for example, were
assigned numbers 1.1 through 1.10. Table 8 identifies the categories used in classifying
the strategies by source or type of control.
TABLE 8. CATEGORIES USED IN CLASSIFYING AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
Category Strategies Source or Type of Control
1 1.1-1.10 Fugitive Dust
2 2.1-2.3 Unpaved Roads
3 3.1-3.3 Paved Roads
4 4.1-4.8 Wood Burning Controls
5 5.1-5.3 Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Equipment
6 6.1-6.2 Agriculture (none in Coconino County)
7 7.1-7.3 Vehicles
8 8.1-8.4 Transportation Control Measures
9 9.1-9.3 Land Use and Growth Controls
10 10.1-10.13 Other Controls
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 22
First, the group was asked to identify those measures that would not be appropriate for
implementation in Coconino County. A strategy was discarded only if everyone in the
group agreed to remove it. During this first phase, seven strategies were eliminated from
further consideration.
Each member of the group was then provided with ten adhesive dots and instructed to
“vote” for air quality strategies by applying dots to the index cards. More than one dot
could be applied to a single card. The cards were then collected and the votes tallied.
Table 9 summarizes the results of this prioritization process. A category number is shown
next to each strategy in Table 9.
The air quality improvement strategy receiving the most votes was “Encourage Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Sources of Energy” (11). The second highest number of votes
was cast for “Educational and Outreach Campaign to Sustain Clean Air” (8). The first
eight strategies each received four or more votes.
The similar strategies, “Stabilize Unpaved Roads and Alleys” and “Reduce Speed Limits
on Unpaved Roads,” together received a total of five votes. So “Stabilize or Reduce
Speeds on Unpaved Roads” has been included as the ninth strategy in Table 10. To round
out the top ten and include a strategy that reduces diesel emissions, “Retrofit Municipal
Diesel Vehicles” has also been added to Table 10.
Table 10 identifies how these strategies support the three main goals identified in the vision
statement: (1) preserve healthy air (i.e. reduce carbon monoxide, volatile organic
compound, nitrogen oxide, or particulate emissions), (2) improve visibility, and (3) reduce
greenhouse gases.
The next chapter discusses how each of these air quality improvement strategies might be
incorporated into a Clean Air Action Plan for Coconino County.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 23
TABLE 9. VOTING RESULTS FOR AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
STRATEGIES
Category
# Air Quality Improvement Strategy
# of
Votes
10.11 Encourage Energy Efficiency and Renewable Sources of Energy 11
10.8 Educational and Outreach Campaign to Sustain Clean Air 8
8.1 Alternatives to Single Occupant Vehicle Travel 6
1.1/1.6 Fugitive Dust Control Plans with Mitigation Bond Requirements 5
4.1 Clean Burning Fireplaces in New Construction 5
4.3 Episode Curtailment Program for Wood Smoke 5
9.2
Innovative Land Use Planning to Encourage Multi-modal
Opportunities
5
10.13
Integrate Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality Decision-making
4
2.1 Stabilize Unpaved Roads and Alleys 3
4.8 Smoke Management Programs 3
8.3 Retrofit Municipal Diesel Vehicles 3
7.1 Encourage Conversion to Alternative Fuels 3
9.3 Attract "Green" Industries 3
10.5 Voluntary Business Community Emissions Reductions 3
10.10 Ozone Awareness Program 3
1.7 Limitations on Opacity 2
1.10 Control Dust on Public Property 2
2.2 Reduce Speed Limits on Unpaved Roads 2
2.3 Limit Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Property 2
3.1 Deploy PM10 Efficient Street Sweepers 2
4.2 Retrofit Existing Fireplaces and Wood Stoves 2
5.2 Inventory Diesel Equipment and Upgrade/Replace High Emitters 2
7.3 Voluntary High Emitter Vehicle Repair/Replacement Program 2
8.4 Employer-Based Measures 2
9.1 Growth Boundaries or Other Limitations 2
1.2 Control Bulk Material Transport 1
3.2 Rapid Cleanup of Material Deposits on Paved Roads 1
4.4 Public Information Program on Fireplaces and Wood Smoke 1
4.7 Provide Alternative Heating Options 1
5.1 Limit Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling 1
8.2 Traffic Flow Measures 1
8.3 Market Based Measures 1
10.1 Restaurant Charbroiler Controls 1
10.7 Apply Maximum Allowable Increases 1
10.12 Expand Air Quality Monitoring 1
Total 100
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 24
TABLE 10. HOW STRATEGIES SUPPORT THE AIR QUALITY GOALS
Strategy
Preserve
Healthy
air
Improve
Visibility
Reduce
Greenhouse
Gases
1. Encourage Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Sources of Energy
X X X
2. Educational and Outreach Program to
Sustain Clean Air
X X X
3. Alternatives to SOV Travel X X X
4. Fugitive Dust Control Plans with
Mitigation Bond Requirements
X X
5. Clean Burning Fireplaces in New
Construction
X X X
6. Episode Curtailment Program for Wood
Smoke
X X X
7 Innovative Land Use Planning to
Encourage Multi-modal Opportunities
X X X
8. Integrate Land Use, Transportation, and
Air Quality Decision-making
X X X
9. Stabilize or Reduce Speeds on Unpaved
Roads
X* X*
10. Retrofit Municipal Diesel Vehicles X X
*Close to the source
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 25
4. CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN
The preferred strategies developed during the visioning session in Flagstaff on April 30,
2003 provide the foundation for a Clean Air Action Plan for Coconino County. The top
ten strategies to be implemented as part of the Clean Air Action Plan are described below.
PREFERRED STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING AIR QUALITY
The strategies are presented in the order they were ranked by the Coconino County
Visioning group. Key characteristics of the top ten strategies are summarized in Table 11.
A more detailed discussion of each air quality improvement strategy is provided below.
1. Encourage Energy Efficiency and Renewable Sources of Energy
This strategy received the highest number of votes from visioning session participants.
More efficient use of energy can be achieved by reducing consumption of electricity.
Renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass sources has the potential to
reduce the depletion of fossil fuels.
Considerable research on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources has been
conducted by the WRAP. The WRAP was formed in 1997 to carry out the
recommendations of the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission. The
Commission was established by Congress in the early 1990's to determine how to protect
and improve visibility in 16 parks and wilderness areas on the Colorado Plateau, including
both the Grand Canyon and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area in Coconino County.
In 2003 the WRAP recommended policies and programs that could be implemented by
states, tribes, and the Federal government to increase efficient use of energy and
consumption and generation of power from renewable sources. Many of the WRAP
recommendations are also applicable to local communities. For example, some “best
practices” to foster energy efficiency at the local level are summarized in Table 12.[9]
Energy Efficiency. The WRAP found that there are a wide range of cost-effective energy
efficiency measures in existence, but there are barriers that prevent their widespread
penetration. The WRAP supported the implementation of financial incentives and
mandatory energy efficiency standards on the part of states and tribes. Other
recommended actions to promote reduced energy consumption included consumer
information and education, utility and environmental regulatory policies, and utility rate
reforms. Additional information on the best practices for energy efficiency can be found at
http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ap2/documents/draft/ Best_Efficiency_Measures_for_West.pdf.
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 26
TABLE 11. CHARACTERISTICS OF PREFERRED AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
Air Quality Improvement
Strategy
Implementation
Mechanism
Pollutants
Reduced*
Sources of
Pollutants Groups Affected
1. Encourage Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Sources of
Energy
Municipal
Policies
CO2, NOx Power Plants
Utilities, Homeowners, Commercial
and Municipal Energy Consumers,
Renewable Energy Providers
2. Conduct Education/Outreach
Program to Sustain Clean Air “Air Aware”
Program
CO, CO2,VOC,
NOx, PM2.5,
PM10
Light Duty
Vehicles, Wood-burning,
Power
Plants
Residents, Businesses, Teachers,
Students, Utilities, Renewable
Energy Providers
3. Encourage Alternatives to
Single Occupant Vehicle
Travel
Municipal
Programs
CO, VOC, NOx,
PM2.5, PM10
Light Duty
Vehicles
Commuters
4. Dust Control Plans with
Mitigation Bond Requirements Ordinances PM10
Construction and
Earthmoving
Activities
Construction Industry, Highway
Contractors
5. Clean Burning Fireplaces in
New Construction
Ordinances NOx, PM2.5, PM10 Wood-burning
Homeowners, Business Owners,
Construction Industry
6. Episode Curtailment Program
for Wood Smoke
Ordinances NOx, PM2.5, PM10 Wood-burning Homeowners, Business Owners
7. Innovative Land Use Planning
to Encourage Multi-Modal
Opportunities
Municipal
Planning and
Zoning
CO, VOC, NOx,
PM2.5, PM10
Light Duty
Vehicles
Residents, NAU, Businesses
8. Integrate Land Use,
Transportation, and Air
Quality Decision-Making
Municipal
Policies and
Planning
CO, VOC, NOx,
PM2.5, PM10
Light Duty
Vehicles
Local Governments, Regional
Planning Agencies
9. Stabilize or Reduce Speeds on
Unpaved Roads
Municipal
Programs
PM10
Vehicles Traveling
on Dirt Roads
Residents living on dirt roads,
Others who drive on dirt roads
10. Retrofit Municipal Diesel
Vehicles and Equipment
Municipal
Programs
CO, VOC, NOx,
PM2.5, PM10
Heavy Duty Diesel
Trucks and
Equipment
Local governments
*CO – carbon monoxide, CO2 – carbon dioxide, VOC – volatile organic compounds; NOx – nitrogen oxides,
PM10 – particulate matter smaller than 10 microns, PM2.5 – particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns
Lima & Associates Final Report – Page 27
TABLE 12. SELECTED ENERGY EFFICIENCY BEST PRACTICES
Sector Source Category Measures
Efficient Cooling Systems
Evaporative cooling – installation, retention, and renewal
of systems
Appliance Recycling Removal of older refrigerators and freezers
Efficient Lighting Mix of compact fluorescent lamp based measures
Clothes washers – mix of Energy Star vertical axis
machines and horizontal axis machines
Residential
Appliance Standards
Appliance standby loss – reduce loss to one watt per
electronic device
Efficient lighting Mix of better technologies
Efficient refrigeration Mix of better technologies
Cooling efficiency – mix of better systems
Efficient cooling systems
Indirect/direct evaporative cooling
Ground Efficient space heating source heat pump
systems Fuel switching from electric to gas
Multi-measure strategies for
existing building stock
Miscellaneous devices (LED traffic lights and signs,
clothes washers, computers, monitors and other office
electronics
Retro-commissioning Operations and maintenance of existing building stock
Water heating Mix of efficiency and fuel switching from electric
Commercial
Transformers Efficiency improvements
Transformers Efficiency improvements
Motors
Premium motors (including replace rather than rewind)
and motor downsizing
Industrial
Motor drive systems System upgrades of fans, air compressors, pumps
Source: Derived from Appendix V of WRAP Air Pollution Prevention Forum, “WRAP Policy - Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency as Pollution
Prevention Strategies for Regional Haze,” April 2003.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 28
Renewable Sources of Energy. The WRAP estimated that six percent of the electricity
needs of the nine-state Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Region were met by renewable
sources in 1999; most of this energy was produced in California. The WRAP
recommendations focus on achieving a goal of meeting 10 percent of the region’s power
needs with renewable sources by 2005 and 20 percent by 2015.
The WRAP concluded that there is considerable potential for generation of renewable
energy in the West, but there are major barriers, the largest of which is cost. With the
exception of wind resources, generation from renewable sources is generally more
expensive than conventional electric technologies. The environmental benefits of
renewable energy are not currently considered adequately in evaluating power generation
costs.
To overcome this barrier, the WRAP recommended that states provide financial incentives
for the production and consumption of renewable energy. In addition, customers who
want to purchase renewable-generated electricity should be given the option of purchasing
part of their power through a subsidized “green pricing program.” To improve the
performance of such a program, states, tribes, and local governments could adopt
complementary policies that lower transaction costs for renewable electricity products and
services.
In 2004, Arizona Public Service (APS) doubled its financial incentives and will now rebate
up to half the cost of solar equipment bought by its customers. On March 24, 2004, APS
broke ground on a unique solar trough generating station that uses energy from the sun to
make steam that turns a turbine generator. These initiatives will help APS meet the
Arizona Corporation Commission's requirement that regulated utilities in the state obtain at
least one percent of their electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind, and
biomass by 2005.[10]
Another innovative renewable energy program is Nevada GreenPower, which encourages
residents and businesses to make tax deductible donations to help subsidize generation of
power from renewable sources. Those interested in supporting renewable energy can sign
up with their power company to add a few extra dollars to their monthly electricity bill.
The program is a joint venture of Nevada Power, Sierra Pacific, and the Desert Research
Institute Foundation. The donations are used to fund solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass
power generation projects and educational programs in Southern Nevada. In 2002,
GreenPower installed solar and wind electricity-generation systems at Hyde Park Middle
School in Las Vegas. Twelve solar panels and a wind turbine with a 4-foot wing span
were mounted on the roof of the school. The power produced by these sources is saving
the school about $500 a year in energy costs. GreenPower also sponsored renewable
energy training for science teachers at Hyde Park Middle School and they have
subsequently modified their lesson plans to include more emphasis on natural resources,
energy conservation and alternative energy sources. The students are also given an
opportunity to collect and analyze data produced by the solar array. The equipment used
in the Hyde Park project was installed by Las Vegas Solar Electric which donated a
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 29
significant part of the costs as a learning experience to fine-tune the process for future
GreenPower sites.
The WRAP concluded that tribal lands in the West have great potential for the
development and delivery of electricity generated from renewable resources. Many tribes
are interested in producing, selling, and using such power. However, additional barriers
exist for many tribes, including lack of an energy authority or policy; local demand for
basic, reliable electric service; and limited capital to finance expensive power generation
facilities. [7]
Implementation Mechanism: This strategy involves implementing a public information
program and incentives to encourage more efficient use of petroleum products, and, where
feasible, substitution of renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power. Since
Coconino County has an abundance of annual sunshine (an average of 264 days per year
are either clear or partly cloudy), solar-powered options should be fully explored via
research and demonstration projects. Individuals might be encouraged to use solar energy
in their homes and businesses if they were shown they can realize monetary savings (i.e.,
tax incentives, lower annual energy costs).
Municipal and county codes should be examined to determine if there are current
impediments to—or opportunities for—conserving energy or substituting renewable power.
To be most effective, there should be research, outreach, and financial incentive
components to this program. The program might be most effectively coordinated and
implemented as a joint venture involving Northern Arizona University, energy providers,
Indian communities, and local governments in Coconino County.
Municipal policies could be developed by local governments and tribes in Coconino
County to provide financial incentives for generating, selling, and using electricity from
“green” sources. Table 12 provides some guidance on local policies that might be
formulated to promote energy efficiency. Local governments should also coordinate with
the Indian communities in Coconino County to develop complementary policies on energy
efficiency and renewable sources. Local governments and citizen groups should also be
encouraged to write letters in support of Federal and state policies and regulations
embodied in the WRAP’s recommendations.
In addition, the Coconino County “Air Aware” Program to be implemented as part of the
education and outreach component of the Clean Air Action Plan should educate consumers,
businesses, and students on how to reduce consumption of electricity, and encourage use of
power from renewable sources (i.e., solar or wind). Via ”Air Aware,” Coconino County
can also communicate the importance of reducing dependency on petroleum products used
in automobiles (i.e. driving cars with high fuel economy).
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: The WRAP forecasted that the recommended energy
efficiency and renewable energy measures will reduce nitrogen oxides by 1-2 percent and
carbon dioxide by 10-14 percent by 2018 in the nine-state Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Region. Reductions in particulate matter and sulfur oxides were estimated to be
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 30
negligible. These estimates are based on reductions in emissions from power plants fueled
with non-renewable resources.
Costs of Implementation: The WRAP estimated that the renewable energy measures in the
Region would cost $300 to $900 million by 2018, while the energy efficiency efforts would
reduce costs by $1 billion. The net benefit would be between $100 and $700 million.
The cost of implementing policies in Coconino County to support the WRAP
recommendations is estimated to be about $75,000 per year, which represents the cost of
hiring a policy analyst to evaluate WRAP recommendations and other potential measures,
develop local government policies, oversee their adoption, and monitor their
implementation. The additional cost of implementing the "Air Aware" campaign, which
would include the promotion of energy efficiency and renewable sources, is discussed
below.
2. Conduct Education/Outreach Program to Sustain Clean Air
This strategy received the second-highest number of votes from participants in the
Coconino County visioning session. It would involve a comprehensive “Air Aware”
campaign which would address measures that individuals, employers and students can take
to reduce air pollution. The campaign would promote alternative transportation modes,
including carpooling, vanpooling, riding the bus, bicycling and walking; compressed work
schedules and telecommuting; alternatives to wood burning in the winter; and refueling
vehicles after dark in the summer. Businesses could be encouraged to meet trip reduction
targets. During the winter, the campaign would educate homeowners on reducing
emissions from wood smoke and discourage use of wood burning during temperature
inversions and bad visibility days. The campaign could also arrange for dust control
training (to be offered by the Arizona Department of Transportation) for construction,
demolition, hauling and landscaping workers and managers.
“Air Aware” should be a multi-media campaign, utilizing one or more of the following:
web page, television, radio, newspaper, bus advertisements. Businesses could be targeted
through direct mail, management-level briefings and/or advertising in business
publications. Information could be provided to residents at community events. The
campaign could also promote energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy.
Brochures could be provided to employers to distribute to their employees and to utility
companies to distribute to their customers. Lesson plans could be distributed to primary
and secondary schools and educational events hosted on local campuses. A special effort
should be made to disseminate information to NAU students and faculty.
Implementation Mechanism: The agency that assumes the leadership role in implementing
the Clean Air Action Plan (Coconino County, NACOG or FMPO) would also be
responsible for conducting the “Air Aware” education and outreach program. The lead
agency would obtain co-sponsors (Chambers of Commerce, cities and towns, Indian
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 31
communities, environmental groups, utilities, and renewable energy companies) to provide
in-kind resources and promote the campaign.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This campaign will reduce pollutants emitted by power
plants, light duty vehicles, and wood burning sources. These pollutants include carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and particulate
matter (both PM10 and PM2.5). Based on the FY 2003 Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Annual Report for Maricopa County, it is estimated that
the “Air Aware” campaign in Coconino County would reduce CO emissions by 51
tons/year, VOCs by 7 tons/year, and PM10 by 11 tons/year. The emission reductions for
Coconino County were derived by applying 3.75 percent to the Maricopa County emission
reduction estimates for air quality education and outreach programs in the CMAQ report.
This is the ratio of the population of Coconino County to the population of Maricopa
County, as reported in the 2000 Census.
Costs of Implementation: A year-round “Air Aware” campaign for Coconino County
would cost an estimated $75,000 per annum. This includes a part-time campaign
coordinator, as well as costs of materials and advertising. For comparison purposes,
Valley Metro in Maricopa County spent about $2.15 million in FY 2003 on air quality
education and outreach programs, including the ozone education program, telework
outreach program, and trip reduction program.
3. Encourage Alternatives to Single Occupant Vehicle Travel
This strategy supports new programs and capital and operating expenditures for bus system
improvements, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, regional ridesharing programs, and park
and ride lots. The objective of these programs and expenditures is to increase the
attractiveness and level of service of these alternative modes, so that the public will reduce
their single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel.
Implementation Mechanism: Local governments in Coconino County would be
responsible for planning and implementing transportation programs and improvements that
improve the competitiveness of alternative modes. The lead agency for the Clean Air
Action Plan would be responsible for regional programs, such as ridesharing, and would
ensure that interfaces among alternative modes are coordinated throughout the County.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This strategy will reduce pollutants emitted by light duty
vehicles. These pollutants include carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen
oxides, and particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5). Based on the FY 2003 CMAQ
Annual Report for Maricopa County, it is estimated that the regional rideshare program in
Coconino County would reduce CO emissions by 57 tons/year, VOCs by 8 metric
tons/year, and PM10 by 12 tons/year. The emission reductions for Coconino County were
derived by applying 3.75 percent to the Maricopa County emission reduction estimates for
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 32
the regional rideshare program in the CMAQ report. This is the ratio of the population of
Coconino County to the population of Maricopa County, as reported in the 2000 Census.
Costs of Implementation: A regional ridesharing program for Coconino County would
cost an estimated $50,000 per year. This includes a part-time program coordinator, as
well as costs of materials and advertising. For comparison purposes, Maricopa County
spent about $660,000 in FY 2003 on the regional ridesharing program. Costs to improve
the infrastructure or service of alternative modes could quickly escalate this cost into the
millions of dollars.
4. Dust Control Plans with Mitigation Bond Requirements
The objective of a dust control plan is to minimize emissions from construction and
earthmoving activities. This strategy requires land-clearing and construction operators to
develop a plan to control dust before, during, and after the dust-generating activities occur.
The dust control plan would have to be approved by a government entity before the
operator can proceed with grading and drainage work.
Activities of this type are temporary yet important sources of PM10 pollution in urban
areas. The activities requiring dust control on the work site include drilling and blasting,
excavation, cut-and-fill, material storage and handling, and vehicles traveling on unpaved
surfaces. In addition, mud and dirt tracked out onto paved public roadways can be a major
source of PM10.
A typical dust control plan for a work site would identify the potential sources of dust, the
location of delivery, transport, and storage areas, the types of material to be stored, and
the size of piles. In addition, the plan would describe measures to be applied at the site
during periods of dust generation, including the frequency and duration of watering or
other suppressant application. The plan would also address control of material track-out
where unpaved access points join paved surfaces and handling of loads during transport to
and from the work site (i.e., all truck loads covered with no less than 3 inches of
freeboard).
The dust control plan could include a variety of work practices such as frequent watering
of disturbed surfaces and storage piles and use of wind fences for control of windblown
dust. Other site-specific prevention and mitigation measures could include paving of roads
and access points early in the project, compaction or stabilization (chemical or vegetative)
of disturbed soil, phasing of earthmoving activities, reduction of mud and dirt tracked onto
paved streets, installation of truck wash or devices to remove dirt from vehicles and tires
prior to exiting the site, and periodic cleaning of the street near work site entrances.
Under the mitigation bond requirement, a company seeking a grading and drainage permit
would provide a letter of credit or surety bond to cover the cost of mitigation measures
contained in the dust control plan. The full amount posted plus interest would be refunded
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 33
at the completion of the project, if the company followed the dust control plan and the
municipality incurred no costs in controlling dust at the project site. Mitigation bond
requirements have been implemented in Clark County, Nevada, and Rancho Mirage,
California. Typical surety bonds posted in Clark County are in the $500-$20,000 range,
depending upon the size of the construction project.
Implementation Mechanism: Arizona law provides local governments with the authority to
suppress environmental nuisances. Under this authority, the cities and towns in Coconino
County could adopt ordinances to require dust control plans in order to avert public
nuisances. Building inspectors could inspect construction sites to ensure that the dust
control plan is being implemented. Enforcement personnel would have to be hired to
respond to complaints. Due to the potential increase in resources required to implement
and enforce this ordinance, the requirement for a dust control plan and mitigation bond
might be most appropriately applied to large construction projects (i.e., greater than 50
acres) in Coconino County. Fees (per acre) are typically charged to cover the costs of
administration and enforcement.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This strategy will reduce particulate matter (PM10)
produced by disturbing soils during construction and earthmoving activities. Based on
Sierra Research estimates, the PM10 reductions associated with watering a 50 acre
residential construction site in accordance with a Dust Control Plan would be 27 tons over
the six-month life of the project, a 61 percent reduction in PM10 emissions. [11]
Costs of Implementation: Sierra Research also estimates that the contractor’s cost to water
a 50-acre site adequately for six months would be about $54,000. Costs of the permits and
mitigation bonds would depend upon fees and rates set by the implementing jurisdiction.
The administrative cost to develop a dust control ordinance with a mitigation bond
requirement would be about $15,000. At least one full time staff person would be required
to review the dust control plans, conduct periodic inspections of 50 acre or larger projects,
and respond to citizen complaints. Employment of this additional staff person would cost
about $60,000.
5. Clean Burning Fireplaces in New Construction
This strategy reduces emissions from new residential and commercial fireplaces and wood
stoves. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality has estimated that wood
burning may cause up to 40 percent of the pollution in neighborhoods during winter
temperature inversions.
Flagstaff already has an ordinance (No. 1664, June 5, 1990) that prohibits the sale or
installation of wood heaters or fireplace insets that do not meet Phase II EPA Standards.
The existing ordinance requires that a permit be obtained before installing a wood burning
heater or fireplace. It also outlaws the burning of coal within the city limits.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 34
A clean burning fireplace ordinance would go further, prohibiting the installation or
construction of a fireplace or wood stove, unless it is one of the following:
• A fireplace that has a permanently installed gas or electric log insert,
• A fireplace or wood stove or any other solid fuel burning appliance that is certified
as conforming to Phase II EPA Standards of Performance for Wood Heaters in 40
CFR Part 60, Subpart AAA, as amended through July 1, 1998, or
• A fireplace that has a permanently installed wood stove insert that complies with
Phase II EPA standards.
The ordinance would prohibit the subsequent conversion or alteration of an approved
fireplace or wood stove to an unapproved use. The ordinance typically provides
exemptions for home heating, industrial equipment, cooking devices, and outdoor
fireplaces.
The advantage of this air quality improvement strategy is that it helps to offset the increase
in emissions due to population growth. In the Phoenix area, Maricopa County and all local
jurisdictions within it were required by the Arizona Legislature (S.B. 1427) to adopt,
implement, and enforce clean burning fireplace ordinances by December 31, 1998.
Implementation Mechanism: Local governments in Coconino County have the authority to
adopt ordinances governing construction and installation of woodstoves and fireplaces.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This strategy will reduce particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5) and NOx emitted in wood smoke. Certified woodstove efficiency is estimated to be
68 percent. Emission reductions from certified wood burning devices would be 0.16 lbs of
PM10 per new residence per heating day, 0.13 lbs of PM2.5 per new residence per heating
day and 0.01 lbs of NOx per new residence per heating day.
Costs of Implementation: The administrative cost to develop a clean burning fireplace
ordinance would be about $10,000. The cost to the consumer could vary from $100-$500,
depending upon the certified woodstove or fireplace product installed. However, operating
efficiencies and reduced fuel costs may result in overall customer savings, as well as air
quality improvements.
6. Episode Curtailment Program for Wood Smoke
This strategy restricts the use of wood stoves and fireplaces during episodes when
monitored concentrations of air pollutants exceed predetermined thresholds. Unless
additional monitors are activated, a wood smoke curtailment program in Coconino County
would be based upon PM10 concentrations at the Flagstaff monitors or degraded visibility
readings at the Grand Canyon monitor. When one of these monitors reached certain
threshold levels and other environmental conditions such as calm winds were evident, a no-
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 35
burn alert would be announced. Alerts would be communicated to the public through the
broadcast media (radio, TV) and to employers via fax notification.
Maricopa County adopted an ordinance establishing a residential wood burning restriction
program in 1994. The annual period during which restrictions on burning can be called is
October 1 through February 29. The County Air Pollution Control Officer can call a
restricted burn period on the basis of an assessment of meteorological data, atmospheric
conditions, ambient temperatures, and monitored carbon monoxide or PM10 concentrations.
When a restriction is called, all fireplaces and wood heating devices must be shut down
within three hours. Exemptions include those that are the sole source of heat in a
residence and those that qualify as an approved wood burning device (i.e. gas logs, EPA
Phase II certified wood heaters, pellet stoves, and masonry heaters). Wood-fired
barbeques and commercial cooking devices are also exempt. Any person who violates this
ordinance within a 1-year period, after being issued a warning notice, is guilty of a civil
offense and subject to a $100 fine. In addition to Maricopa County, this strategy has been
implemented in Missoula, Montana; Mammoth Lakes, California; and Clark and Washoe
counties in Nevada.
Implementation Mechanism: Jurisdictions in Coconino County have the authority to adopt
ordinances establishing a wood smoke curtailment program and setting criteria for no-burn
advisories. The local governments would need to work cooperatively with the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to set up a real-time forecasting system
using meteorology and the PM10 and visibility monitoring data available for Coconino
County. The ADEQ can assist in determining whether additional monitors (i.e. carbon
monoxide) would be needed to augment the forecasting system.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: Assuming 15 curtailment days per year, this strategy
would reduce PM10 by 165 lbs per wood heated residence, PM2.5 by 135 lbs per wood
heated residence, and NOx by 15 lbs per wood heated residence.
Costs of Implementation: The administrative cost to develop a wood smoke curtailment
ordinance would be about $15,000. The administrative cost to set up and maintain a real-time
monitoring system, publicize high pollution advisories, and enforce no-burn
restrictions could cost as much as $70,000 per year.
7. Innovative Land Use Planning to Encourage Multi-Modal Opportunities
This strategy would promote land use plans and policies that will increase the use of modes
other than the single occupant vehicle. The urban growth boundary implemented in
Flagstaff will have the eventual effect of increasing both residential and employment
densities, which, in turn, will promote the use of alternative modes. Limited parking
exists in downtown Flagstaff; rather than providing more parking, the fees for the existing
spaces could be increased. These measures are also typical of land use policies that
encourage transit-oriented development.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 36
Like many university towns, Flagstaff has taken the initiative to develop an extensive
network of bike paths, the Flagstaff Urban Trail System, to encourage bicycling in lieu of
driving. Similarly, land use planning that creates convenient access for pedestrians will
increase walking, improve public health, and reduce vehicle trips. Other design techniques
such as traffic calming, roundabouts, and auto-free zones have been applied elsewhere in
the country to discourage vehicular traffic. Although these planning and design
innovations are important in increasing the attractiveness of alternative modes, another
element in their success has been the parallel, and often major, investment in improved
service and infrastructure for alternative modes such as late night and weekend bus service,
coordinated networks of bicycle and pedestrian paths, and pedestrian-friendly street
redesign.
This strategy would be implemented as part of the comprehensive planning processes at all
levels of government in Coconino County. In order to be effective in reducing SOV
travel, policies that promote increased residential and commercial densities, restrict
parking supply, and impose higher parking fees need to be paired with increased capital
investments in transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities. Because public funding is limited
especially at this time, financing for these capital investments may require considerable
political will. Strong public support will also be needed to increase parking rates as this
action, although effective in encouraging use of alternative modes, has proven to be
politically unacceptable in many parts of the country.
Implementation Mechanism: Local governments in Coconino County have the authority to
prepare land use and zoning plans that incorporate one or more innovative planning and
design features. The Growing Smarter legislation requires governments to update their
general plans on a periodic basis. Innovative land uses that encourage higher density
developments and use of alternative transportation modes can be integrated into the next
general plan update.
A potential source of funding for innovative land use planning to support transportation
and environmental goals is federal grants. There is considerable interest at the federal
level in funding projects that demonstrate the impacts of land use planning on
transportation and air quality. These impacts are intuitively suspected, but have not been
quantified to any great extent. Local governments might consider teaming with Northern
Arizona University to apply for a grant from EPA or U.S. DOT to show how innovative
land use policies can result in increased use of alternative transportation modes.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: If innovative land use planning reduces vehicle travel in
Coconino County by one percent in 2015, the reduction in vehicle emissions would be
about 676 kg/day for carbon monoxide, 38 kg/day for nitrogen oxides, 35 kg/day for
volatile organic compounds, and 38 kg/day for particulate matter (PM10). Reducing VMT
will also decrease greenhouse gases, gasoline consumption, and the County's reliance on
fossil fuels.
Costs of Implementation: There would be negligible cost to incorporate multi-modal land
use planning and design concepts into the required general plan updates. However, there
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 37
could be considerable costs associated with capital investments in infrastructure and
services to improve the attractiveness of alternative modes.
8. Integrate Land Use, Transportation, and Air Quality Decision-Making
This strategy would involve a review of development and transportation plans, programs,
and policies at all levels of government in Coconino County to determine if land use,
transportation and the environment, including air quality, are adequately coordinated.
Typically, long-range plans include land use, transportation, and environmental goals and
objectives. However, these may not be translated into integrated programs and policies.
Day-to-day decisions of local government officials may not reflect the same level of
integration as is contained in these plans. If not, then better coordination needs to take
place within agencies. This is complicated by the fact that land use, transportation, and
environmental issues are typically handled by different departments and reviewing work of
other departments may not be the highest priority.
To ensure that land use, transportation and air quality decisions are integrated across
Coconino County, coordination also needs to take place at all levels of government. For
example, County staff should be familiar with the plans, programs, policies, and decisions
being made by the City of Flagstaff and the Flagstaff MPO, and vice versa. Coordination
with other large land owners and policy-makers, such as the Indian tribes, state, and
federal government, is also important.
To make informed decisions, elected officials and municipal/county managers need to
obtain staff recommendations that reflect an understanding of the land use, transportation
and environmental implications of proposed actions. One way to ensure that coordination
has occurred is to require a formal review of major proposals by appropriate departments
within the agency. Another approach would be to assign a staff person as an integrator;
that is, someone who understands the issues and impacts of proposed actions across all
functions. As an initial step, decision-makers could direct their staffs to consider the land
use, transportation and environmental implications of each proposed action and point out
significant problems or discontinuities with internal programs and policies or those at other
levels of government. The Arizona Department of Transportation is currently conducting
a land use, transportation, and air quality integration study. When completed, this study
may be useful in providing guidelines for more integrated policies and decision-making
throughout Arizona.
Implementation Mechanism: Elected and appointed local government leaders in Coconino
County have the authority to internally reorganize and reprioritize to ensure that the
integration of land use, transportation, and air quality policies and decisions takes place.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: If improved integration in land use, transportation, and
air quality decision-making reduces vehicle travel in Coconino County by one percent in
2015, the reduction in vehicle emissions would be about 676 kg/day for carbon monoxide,
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 38
38 kg/day for nitrogen oxides, 35 kg/day for volatile organic compounds, and 38 kg/day
for particulate matter (PM10). Reducing VMT will also decrease greenhouse gases,
gasoline consumption, and the County's reliance on fossil fuels.
Costs of Implementation: There would be minimal cost to reorganize or reprioritize to
emphasize integration, rather than compartmentalization, in local government agencies.
9. Stabilize Surface or Reduce Speeds on Unpaved Roads
This strategy involves actions to mitigate the dust and PM10 pollution generated by vehicles
traveling on dirt roads in Coconino County. Potential measures include paving, covering
the surface with gravel, chemical stabilization, watering, or reducing speeds of vehicle
traffic. Speeds could be reduced by posting lower speed limits or building speed bumps.
The cities, towns, and County could implement these measures on public unpaved roads
under their jurisdiction. Since there are a large number of unpaved roads in Coconino
County, controlling dust on all of them would not be practical. Given the large size of the
County and the limited resources available, it might be appropriate to target the unpaved
roads with the highest average daily traffic (ADT) or those closest to the Grand Canyon or
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area first. In Maricopa County, public dirt roads that carry
more than 150 ADT must be stabilized by June 10, 2004.
Implementation Mechanism: Stabilization of public unpaved roads or a reduction in speeds
on those roads could be undertaken by the local governments in Coconino County that
currently maintain these facilities. The legislature has authorized local governments to
lower speeds on public dirt roads if doing so will reduce air pollution.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This strategy reduces PM10 emissions from vehicles
traveling on dirt roads. Sierra Research has recently reported that reducing average speeds
from 25.9 to 25.0 miles per hour on dirt roads in San Joaquin Valley with an annual
average daily traffic count (ADT) of 15 vehicles per day reduces PM10 emissions by 29.9
pounds per day per centerline mile or 5.45 tons per year. Sierra also estimated that the
reduction in PM10 emissions due to paving a dirt road having 20 to 65 ADT per day would
be 7.45 to 20.45 tons per year per centerline mile.[11]
Costs of Implementation: Sierra Research has also estimated that it will cost $400 per
centerline mile of dirt road to install one speed limit sign in each direction. The average
cost of paving a road in San Joaquin Valley is $400,000 per mile, including roadway
excavation, aggregate base, striping, and traffic control.
10. Retrofit Municipal Diesel Vehicles and Equipment
Although this strategy only received three votes from the visioning group (versus the four
or more votes received by each of the others), it was added to the list of top ten preferred
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 39
strategies because it is the only one that mitigates the impact of diesel emissions on public
health and visibility. In 2001, EPA mandated stricter standards for heavy duty diesel
vehicles that will begin phasing in with model year 2007. The catalytic converters that
will be installed in the cleaner diesel vehicles are quickly rendered inoperative by the high
sulfur content of the diesel fuel currently sold in America (except California). To address
this problem, EPA is also requiring that low sulfur diesel fuel be sold nationwide by mid-
2006. In May 2003, EPA also proposed stricter standards for diesel equipment that
operates off-road, such as that used for construction and agricultural purposes, which may
begin to phase-in as early as 2007.
These new federal standards will reduce emissions from new diesel vehicles and engines.
However, due to the longevity of this equipment and its high cost, it will be many years
before older “dirty” vehicles are retired and diesel fleets are entirely “clean”. In the
meantime, local governments are taking actions to accelerate the conversion to cleaner
diesel fuels and reduce diesel tailpipe emissions. For example, in 2002 the State of
Arizona inaugurated a Diesel Conversion Grant Program that provides up to $30,000 of
the cost of converting a diesel vehicle over 19,500 pounds GVW to alternative fuels. To
qualify for the grant, the vehicle must travel 50 percent or more of the time in the Phoenix
or Tucson metropolitan areas. Alternative fuels are defined as compressed natural gas
(CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, electric, solar, or hydrogen.
The Environmental Protection Agency is promoting a number of new initiatives as part of
its Diesel Emission Reduction Program. EPA is encouraging public/private partnerships to
reduce idling and retrofit or replace older engines of diesel vehicles. One such initiative is
Clean School Bus USA, which has established a goal of modernizing the entire public
school bus fleet by 2010. See www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus. Under this program, EPA is
providing grants to school districts for demonstration projects. Paradise Valley School
District in Maricopa County was awarded a grant in FY 2004 to use ultra low sulfur (15
ppm) diesel fuel in their school buses and install particulate traps on 20 buses. Federal
funding for Clean School Bus USA was $5 million in FY 2003 and FY 2004, but may
increase to as much as $65 million in FY 2005. In addition, as part of a federal settlement
with Toyota, an additional $20 million will become available in the spring of 2004. School
districts and others interested in diesel emission reduction programs may be eligible for
funds from this settlement.
Retrofitting municipal diesel vehicles and equipment to reduce emissions in Coconino
County could take many forms, including conversion to alternative fuels (i.e., biodiesel),
installation of oxidation catalysts and particulate filters, and application of idling reduction
technology (i.e., electrification kits). Professor William Auberle of Northern Arizona
University received a grant from EPA in 2001 to conduct workshops on technologies that
are available to reduce vehicle idling at truck stops and other locations. He would be an
excellent resource for additional information on diesel technologies that could be applied to
municipal vehicles and equipment.
It is envisioned that these retrofit technologies could be applied to garbage trucks, street
sweepers, school buses, or off-road diesel equipment (i.e., construction) owned by city or
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 40
county governments. The cities of Mesa and Tempe are jointly planning to retrofit 45
municipal vehicles with oxidation catalysts and particulate filters and run them on low
sulfur diesel fuel. The estimated cost of this FY 2007 demonstration project will be
$350,000.
The City of Flagstaff has issued a request for bids to supply the City’s vehicle fleet with
biodiesel. The product will be used in over 100 city vehicles including fire trucks, refuse
trucks, and roadway maintenance vehicles.
Other local governments in Coconino County could team with Northern Arizona
University to request a grant from EPA to conduct a demonstration project to retrofit
municipal diesel vehicles and equipment. Although ultra low sulfur diesel fuel will be
available in mid-2006 and stricter federal standards for new model diesel vehicles will
begin in 2007, older diesel engines will still be emitting high levels of pollution for many
years. (Diesel engines typically last 20-35 years). To reduce emissions from these older
engines, local governments need to institute programs to reduce idling and retrofit or
replace older diesel vehicles and equipment. Diesel exhaust emissions contribute to the
degradation of visibility and may even be carcinogenic. It is especially troubling that
children are being exposed to toxic fumes when they ride diesel buses to school.
Implementation Mechanism: Local governments in Coconino County have the authority to
retrofit municipal diesel vehicles, such as garbage trucks, street sweepers, school buses
and off-road equipment, to reduce air pollution. They can also conduct voluntary
programs that encourage reductions in idling of diesel vehicles and equipment.
Sources and Pollutants Reduced: This strategy reduces carbon monoxide, volatile organic
compounds, nitrogen oxides, and particulate emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) that are emitted
by diesel trucks and equipment. In the case of the 45 municipal diesel vehicles that are to
be retrofitted with 3-way catalysts and particulate traps by Mesa and Tempe in FY 2007,
the estimated emission reductions are 12.8 kg/day for CO, 1.3 kg/day for VOCs, 27.4
kg/day for NOx, and 1.0 kg/day for PM10.
Costs of Implementation: The cost to implement the pilot retrofit program for the 45
Mesa/Tempe municipal vehicles is estimated to be $350,000. Funding for diesel emission
reduction programs in Coconino County is potentially available from EPA and the
imminent Toyota settlement. The Mobile Sources Forum of the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) may also have $40-70K available in FY 2005 to fund diesel retrofit
projects. Since improving visibility in the Grand Canyon (and other 15 Colorado Plateau
Class I areas) is a primary goal of the WRAP, Coconino County should be a competitive
candidate for these funds. The Air Quality Steering Committee could take the lead in
identifying worthy diesel retrofit projects and applying for WRAP funding, EPA grants,
and a portion of the Toyota settlement.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 41
CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN
Table 13 summarizes the tasks that need to be implemented to achieve the desired
improvements in Coconino County air quality. The first step in implementing the Clean
Air Action Plan will be to set up an Air Quality Steering Committee. It is envisioned that
the Northern Arizona Council of Governments (NACOG), the FMPO, or Coconino
County would assume a leadership role in implementing the Clean Air Action Plan, since
air quality is a regional issue that transcends city and town boundaries. The agency
selected to play the lead role in implementing the Plan will also be responsible for
identifying specific resource requirements and funding sources for each task.
The third task in Table 13, the strategy receiving the second-highest number of votes
during the visioning process, is the air quality education and outreach program. A
website, fact sheets, and other collateral materials are being provided as part of this ADOT
contract to “jump-start” this Plan. Early implementation of this task should create the
momentum, enthusiasm, and support necessary to fund and implement the remainder of the
Plan.
Conclusion
The residents of Coconino County desire to improve their air quality. Specifically, they
want to reduce air pollutants that are unhealthy to breathe, impair visibility, and contribute
to global warming. Through a visioning process, local stakeholders have identified the
issues of greatest concern, contributed to a vision statement, and prioritized potential air
quality improvement strategies. A Clean Air Action Plan has been developed to ensure
that the “vision” becomes a reality. Air quality can be improved and the quality of life can
be sustained in Coconino County through a coordinated regional effort with a clear
“vision” and the direction provided by the Clean Air Action Plan.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 42
TABLE 13. CLEAN AIR ACTION PLAN FOR COCONINO COUNTY
Task Responsibility
Time
Frame
1. Set up Air Quality Steering
Committee
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead; Committee membership – elected,
staff, and ADOT
1-3 months
2. Encourage Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Sources of
Energy
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead w/input from Air Quality Steering
Committee
1 year
3. Conduct Education/Outreach
Program to Sustain Clean Air
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead w/input from Air Quality Steering
Committee
3-6 months
4. Encourage Alternatives to
Single Occupant Vehicle
Travel
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead w/input from Air Quality Steering
Committee
1 year
5. Dust Control Plans with
Mitigation Bond
Requirements
Local Governments 1-3 years
6. Clean Burning Fireplaces in
New Construction
Local Governments 1-3 years
7. Episode Curtailment Program
for Wood Smoke
Local Governments 1-3 years
8. Innovative Land Use
Planning to Encourage Multi-
Modal Opportunities
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead w/input from Air Quality Steering
Committee
1-3 years
9. Integrate Land Use,
Transportation and Air
Quality Decision-Making
NACOG, FMPO, or Coconino County
lead w/input from Air Quality Steering
Committee
1-3 years
10. Stabilize or Reduce Speeds
on Unpaved Roads
Local Governments 1-3 years
11. Retrofit Municipal Diesel
Vehicles and Equipment
Local Governments 1-3 years
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 43
5. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OUTREACH PROGRAM
This chapter presents candidate elements for the educational outreach program and
recommends elements for selection in implementing the program. The first portion of the
chapter presents the goals, theme, target audiences, and potential program sponsors.
In February 2001, this Project Team completed the development of a similar
implementation program for an Air Quality Outreach Program for Central Yavapai
County.[12] Program elements were developed with input from that project’s technical
advisory committee as well as a Steering Committee comprised of area stakeholders. The
second part of the chapter identifies recommended outreach techniques for implementation
in Coconino County.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE PROGRAM
The overall goal of the outreach program is summarized by the Vision Statement presented
in Chapter 3. As mentioned in Chapter 3, “Development and implementation of an
Education/Outreach Program” is one of the action items recommended for adoption in
support of the Vision Statement.
THEME OF THE OUTREACH PROGRAM
As a first step in developing the Outreach Program, a graphical representation was
developed together with the Steering Committee. A logo was developed incorporating:
• Geography, nature, and landscape of Coconino County
• Characteristics of the environment
• Focus on preserving and improving air quality
• Appealing slogan
• Kinship with other air quality outreach programs sponsored by the Arizona
Department of Transportation
Figure 6 introduces a proposed logo for the outreach effort. The graphic identifies the
jurisdictions spearheading the effort without restricting the geographical extent to particular
jurisdictional boundaries. Additionally, the logo stylizes the familiar profile of the San
Francisco Peaks north of Flagstaff. Through the chosen slogan of AIR AWARE, focus is
directed to the need to improve air quality in the County. The choice of AIR AWARE,
which has been adopted by Central Yavapai County in a similar effort and is used on the
ADOT Air Quality Web site, links the new Coconino program to the growing success and
acceptance of these previously conducted efforts.
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 44
FIGURE 6. PROPOSED LOGO FOR THE AIR AWARE OUTREACH EFFORT
Source: Lima & Associates
TARGET AUDIENCES
Air quality affects everyone, and local residents and visitors alike will benefit from
sustained air quality or suffer from increased air pollution. Therefore, the Outreach
Program should target the general public, and special attention should be paid to ensure
that all segments of the population are reached. Moreover, it is important that outreach
activities strive to provide information in regard to the most effective strategies for
improving air quality. Table 14 lists the air quality improvement strategies identified
during the Visioning Session. Each strategy is paired with the potential target group
affected by the strategy. Additionally, possible mechanisms for reaching the specific
groups are identified.
Based on the control strategies, several segments of the population have been identified as
being essential to the effectiveness of the Outreach Program. A database should be
developed to manage this information. As the Outreach Program evolves, the database
could be used to facilitate mailings and specifically indicate interested groups and
individuals.
Stakeholder Database
A database application should be developed to track contacts in the identified target groups
and other potentially interested stakeholders in the process. Figure 7 presents a possible
form layout for such an application.
COCONINO AREA GOVERNMENTS
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 45
TABLE 14. MATRIX OF STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING AIR QUALITY IN COCONINO COUNTY
Strategy
Possible
Measure What’s Already Being Done Target Groups Outreach Measures
Encourage energy
efficiency and renewable
sources of energy
Municipal
policy
• Greater Flagstaff Economic Council
Renewable Energy Fair, August
2003
• Green building code
• Arizona Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
• General public
• Construction industry
• Public agencies
• Chambers of
commerce
• Newsletter
• Public service announcements
• Information materials for
booths
Educational and Outreach
Program to sustain clean
air
Voluntary
program
• Arizona Public Service company
policies
• Arizona Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan
• General public
• Schools
• Fact sheets
• Public service announcements
• Educational programs
Alternatives to SOV travel Municipal
program
• Mountain Line and VanGo transit
and paratransit services in the
Flagstaff area
• Pedestrian and bicycle lane
construction guide
• Transportation Demand Management
program
• General public
• Motor vehicle
operators
• Employers
• Public agencies
• Winter ski industry
• Deep discount passes
• Educational materials
• Bike and pedestrian trails map
• Information on forming
carpools and vanpools
Fugitive dust control plans
with mitigation bond
requirements
Ordinance • Including county-wide road paving in
Capital Improvement Program – as
fiscally feasible
• All-terrain vehicle restrictions
• Construction industry
• Small timber logging
• Building inspectors
• Provide informational materials
through permitting process and
on a local website
Clean burning fireplaces in
new construction
Ordinance • City of Flagstaff restricts sale of non-
EPA certified devices
• General public
• Contractors
• Homeowners with
wood-burning
fireplaces
• News media
• Provide information material
through the permitting process
and on a local website
Episode Curtailment
Program for wood smoke
Municipal
program
• Air curtain destructors available for
$200,000 each can contain smoke
from controlled burning
• ADEQ open-burning rule
• Individuals and
agencies Involved in
open burning
• Public service announcements
Lima & Associates and Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 46
TABLE 14. MATRIX OF CONTROL STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINING AIR QUALITY IN COCONINO COUNTY
(Continued)
Strategy
Possible
Approach What’s Already Being Done Target Groups Outreach Measures
Innovative land use
planning to encourage
multi-modal opportunities
Municipal
plans
Zoning
ordinances
• City of Flagstaff has
established urban growth
boundary; design review
guidelines
• County Comprehensive Plan,
encouraging higher densities,
is pending Board approval
• Transit-oriented design in the
Regional Transportation Plan
• Elected officials
• Municipal planning
agencies
• Internal directives from top
management
• Intergovernmental coordination and
cooperation
Integrate land use,
transportation, and air
quality decision-making
Municipal
policy
• Transit-oriented design in the
Regional Transportation Plan
• State Legislature
(eliminate wildcat
subdivisions)
• Elected officials
• Municipal agencies
• Internal directives from top
management
• Intergovernmental coordination and
cooperation
Stabilize unpaved roads
Reduce speeds on unpaved
roads
Municipal
program
• “No Dust Area” signs posted
• County CIP Promotes
Improvement Districts
• Flagstaff has a paving
program; all dirt roads to be
paved as resources permit
• Neighborhood speed watches
• Elected officials
• Municipal agencies
• Neighborhoods
• Intergovernmental coordination and
cooperation
• Public service announcements
Retrofit Municipal diesel
vehicles
Municipal
program
��� City of Flagstaff is using
biodiesel in 100 municipal
vehicles
• Coconino County is evaluating
the Flagstaff program
• Municipal agencies • Publish success stories (Flagstaff
experience) on local website
• Source of information on other efforts
to retrofit diesel vehicles and use
alternative fuels is ictc@gladstein.org
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 47
FIGURE 7. AIR AWARE OUTREACH DATABASE FORM
Source: Lima & Associates
OUTREACH SPONSORS
Based on the database, efforts should be undertaken to identify potential outreach sponsors,
who should be contacted to solicit their participation in the program. There are several
ways in which stakeholders can participate:
• Jurisdictional buy-in, representation of AIR AWARE as a motto in civic functions.
• Jurisdictions and utilities could assist in funding the design and creation of collateral
materials. Such materials can be included in monthly utility billings to residents, or
AIR AWARE announcements can be included in newsletters, which are often
included in such billings. At a minimum, these newsletters could display the AIR
AWARE logo signifying the endorsement and participation of the jurisdiction or
utility.
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 48
• School districts could develop AIR AWARE "units" for classroom use, and begin
by ensuring that faculty members themselves are informed on clean air issues.
Science classes could include segments on solar energy and alternative fuels,
stressing the importance of future clean air to today's youth.
• Chambers of Commerce, service clubs, and other civic organizations could be
asked to participate by assisting with funding, including the logo and information in
their mailings, and/or recruiting volunteers to aid in making presentations to other
groups.
Chambers of Commerce might incorporate the Air Quality Outreach Program into other
Outreach Programs that the Chambers conduct. Other civic organizations and local
jurisdictions should also be encouraged to become sponsors of the Outreach Program.
PROGRAM COMPONENTS
To enable the Outreach Program to effectively target the general public, a series of
measures could be implemented to support the AIR AWARE program. Table 15 lists these
possible mechanisms. Emphasis should be given to materials for community media
including the following:
• Informational and educational fact sheets
• Public service advertisements for newspapers (area newspapers themselves should
be encouraged to become sponsors of the campaign by running such ads, as well as
announcements of AIR AWARE activities, free of charge)
• Public service announcement scripts for radio and television
• Press releases
• Graphical presentations
• Mass mailings
RECOMMENDED OUTREACH TECHNIQUES
This section presents the outreach techniques recommended for this project, including the
use of “portal” links to ADOT’s AIR AWARE Web site, fact sheets, and a slide
presentation.
Air Aware Web Site
Following the recommendations of the Central Yavapai Study, ADOT developed an AIR
AWARE Web site.[13] Over time, the site has been continually revised and expanded, and
contains a section on the Coconino Project including the two previous working papers and
the preliminary recommendations of the Visioning Session. The current home page of the
site is shown in Figure 8. The current Web address for the site is http://tpd.az.gov/air/.
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 49
TABLE 15. POTENTIAL AIR QUALITY OUTREACH COMPONENTS
Potential Component
• Informational fact sheets – problem definition, description of current
activities, key contact persons
• Educational fact sheets– description of air pollutants and strategies
• Scripts for radio and television public service announcements
• Feature articles for newspapers
• Poster boards
• Displays for open houses
• Speakers bureau
• Off-the-shelf videos
• Neighborhood meetings
• Business group meetings
��� Structure for workshops
• Material for public area display
• Structure for telephone hot line
• Content for opinion polls
• Community access television program material
• Suggested briefings with decision makers
• Structure for public panel discussions
• Structure for press briefings
• Collateral material for mailings to target groups
• Syllabi for elementary, middle school, and high school air quality
preservation units and accompanying classroom materials and handouts
• Content for Web site
ADOT personnel have been able to post updates to the site fairly promptly, responding to
one of the principal concerns regarding informational Web sites. However, by its very
nature, the ADOT site will always be statewide in scope. As additional areas and
jurisdictions develop air quality-related outreach efforts involving ADOT affiliation or
sponsorship, the ADOT site will become more complex. The “Coconino AIR AWARE”
effort should consider implementing one or more “portal�� sites of its own that could be
linked directly to Coconino pages on the ADOT site. For simplicity of site maintenance,
program updates should be forwarded to ADOT for uploading to the Coconino pages of
their site. Candidate portals for the Coconino AIR AWARE effort include:
• Coconino County http://co.coconino.az.us/
• City of Flagstaff http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/
• Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/
• Flagstaff, Arizona Online http://www.flagstaff.az.us/
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 50
FIGURE 8. ADOT AIR AWARE WEB SITE HOME PAGE
Source: Arizona Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, Air Quality Policy
Section
• Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce http://www.flagstaffchamber.org/
• GRAND CANYON Explorer http://www.kaibab.org/home.htm
• City of Williams http://www.ci.williams.az.us/
• City of Page and Lake Powell http://www.page-lakepowell.com/
• Williams–Grand Canyon Chamber of Commerce
http://www.williamschamber.com/
• Navajo Nation http://www.navajo.org/
One concept would be to encourage any or all of these agencies to include the AIR
AWARE logo on their Web site home pages. The AIR AWARE logo would be linked so
that clicking on it would take the user directly to a portal page such as that depicted in
Figure 9. Such a page could be part of the Coconino section of the ADOT site, or could
be an independent site linked to the ADOT site. Ideally, this page could also be reached
directly by entering an easy-to-remember Web address such as
www.coconinoairquality.org or www.coconinoairaware.org.
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 51
FIGURE 9. EXAMPLE WEB PORTAL PAGE
Source: Lima & Associates
The expense of reserving and maintaining such a Web domain name would represent a
small amount of the campaign’s overall budget. This Web address and/or a toll-free air
quality hotline number would be included in all literature published on behalf of the
outreach campaign and would also be imprinted on promotional giveaways such as pens,
T-shirts, and coffee mugs.
Fact Sheets
Fact sheets provide both general information and discussion of specific air quality
strategies. The following fact sheets have been prepared as examples to be used as part of
the educational outreach program.
• Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Sources of Energy
• WoodBurning and Air Quality
• Improving Air Quality in Coconino
County
• Land Use Planning, Transportation,
and Air Quality
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 52
• Alternatives to Single Occupant
Vehicle Travel
• Diesel Vehicles and Equipment
• Controlling Construction Dust
Drafts of these Fact Sheets are contained in Appendix A.
Slide Presentation Script
A draft slide presentation script has been prepared for the Outreach Program and is
included in Appendix B. This presentation has been designed for the general public and
summarizes the visioning process, presents control strategies, and provides suggestions
regarding how the viewer can aid in improving air quality.
EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH
The Project Team identified schools as a key target group for the Outreach Program. In
addition, chambers of commerce in Coconino County could incorporate elements of the
Air Quality Outreach Program into their annual programs of work and assist in obtaining
private sector participation and sponsorship. The chamber in each community could
introduce the program to grade schools, high schools, and community colleges.
Elementary, Middle, and High School Programs
Educational programs could be developed internally through the curricula of local schools
and can also be obtained from commercially available sources. Materials that could be
developed locally include:
• AIR AWARE lesson plans and fact sheets for administrators and teachers
• AIR AWARE educational materials such as posters and workbooks for students
• Coloring books, games, and puzzles for younger students
The EPA Web site has an EPA Student Center at http://www.epa.gov/students/ that
includes an air quality section. Sites linked to the Air Quality page include a “Plain
English Guide to the Clean Air Act”, an environmental atlas, and a site discussing air
quality issues related to National Parks.
Local and regional agencies have also developed educational programs. For example, the
Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) has developed “Clean Air Express”, an air
quality resource manual for K-12 teachers that can be downloaded from the PSCAA Web
site at http://www.pscleanair.org/news/cleanairexpress.
Lima & Associates/Cathy D. Arthur Final Report – Page 53
Northern Arizona University Involvement
As was discussed in Chapter 3, Dr. Terry Baxter, Ph.D., P.E., of the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at NAU participated in the Visioning Session and provided
background support by presenting a slide show entitled “We Can’t Afford Polluted Air!”
that had previously been developed by the Department. The University has played a key
role in guiding and supporting the environmental concerns and goals of the region—NAU’s
involvement in the air quality outreach program will be no less important.
As the effort to sustain and improve the quality of County air progresses, the University
can provide technical expertise and oversight and can serve as a supporting reference for
techniques and strategies that are adopted and recommended by the program.
OVERVIEW OF OUTREACH IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the outreach program consists of three major components:
• Establish Institutional Framework
• Finalize and Publish Collateral Material
• Initiate Outreach Campaign
For each component, the project team has developed a list of actions needed to implement
the outreach program. The specific actions for implementing the program are listed in
chronological order in Table 16, which is structured as a template to be used in assigning
responsibilities and milestones for each of the program components.
Once the institutional framework has been established, the program coordinator